Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL WAR EFFORT

Government Employees

Sir Leonard Lyle: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will given an assurance that, before industries and other forms of employment are combed further, he will apply similar methods to Government Departments and particularly to the new ones set up since the commencement of the war?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): No, Sir. The comb-out of industry and of Government Departments must proceed concurrently.

Sir L. Lyle: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any idea as to how many civil servants have been relieved for other work of national importance during, say, the last six months?

Mr. Bevin: I should require notice of that question.

Optical Lenses

Major Peto: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the increasing shortage of optical lenses; and whether, in view of the importance of individual visual efficiency in maintaining and increasing the output of war factories, he can give an assurance that sufficient labour is left available for lens production?

Mr. Bevin: Yes, Sir, I am fully aware of this problem, on which my Department is in close touch with the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Supply.

Factories (Pregnant Women)

Mr. Quintin Hogg: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that women are working in factories during the seventh, eighth and ninth months of their

pregnancies and after the expiration of one month of their delivery; and what steps he proposes to take to deal with this situation?

Mr. Bevin: The existing restriction on the freedom of women to work at such times is contained in the public health law, and I would refer my hon. Friend to the Reply given to him in this connection by my right hon. Friend on 28th January. I doubt whether the matter could be adequately dealt with merely by proposing further restrictions under the Factory Acts.

Mr. Hogg: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the reply to which he referred said that the administration of health in this important matter must be his concern? Does he not think it suitable that special restrictions and regulations should apply to this somewhat important matter?

Mr. Bevin: I think my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health said that so far as it affects the Factory Acts it was under my jurisdiction. That is quite true. I am doubtful, however, whether I can deal with the whole problem raised in the Question by altering the law as it applies to factories alone.

Mr. Hogg: Is it not a fact that at the moment the conditions in which these women in the seventh, eighth and ninth months of their pregnancy work are determined solely by the welfare organisation of the factory in which they work and depend entirely on the excellence and good will of that organisation? Would it not be better to have some legal supervision?

Mr. Bevin: What I am endeavouring to point out to my hon. Friend is that the Factory Acts do not cover the whole of industry, not by a long way. Therefore, I am doubtful whether I can solve this problem by a mere amendment of the Factory Acts. I think it is a wider subject.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that the whole trouble is due to the fact that these women are not eligible for National Health Insurance benefit until the last few weeks of pregnancy?

Trade Disputes

Mr. James Griffiths: asked the Minister of Labour how many trade disputes have been reported to him under


the Conditions of Employment and National Arbitration Order; and with what result?

Mr. Bevin: The Order came into operation in July, 1940, and up to 27th January, 1943, 1,034 trade disputes have been reported under its provision. Action in regard to 81 cases is still proceeding, and 16 are for various reasons held in suspense. 498 have been disposed of without reference to arbitration as a result of action taken following the receipt of the report and 366 have been referred for settlement to the National Arbitration Tribunal. The remaining 73 cases have, with the consent of the parties concerned, been referred to other forms of arbitration. I appreciate to the full the great debt that we owe to the normal machinery of negotiation for settling the many differences that arise day by day. Nevertheless, the Order has proved of great value not only in preventing stoppages of work but in avoiding industrial unrest where the ordinary machinery is not able or is not available to settle disputes.

Unemployment Statistics

Mr. Burke: asked the Minister of Labour whether he considers it necessary to continue the compilation of the statistics of unemployment so frequently as once a month?

Mr. Bevin: The relatively small numbers now registering as unemployed consist mainly of persons who are changing from one job to another or are unsuitable, owing to age or physical disability or for other reasons, for ordinary industrial employment. In view of the pressure of work in my Department, and of the necessity for all possible economies in the use of staff, I have decided that the unemployment statistics shall in future be compiled and published only at quarterly intervals. Under this arrangement the next figures to be published after those relating to 18th January will be those for 12th April.

London Dockers and Stevedores (Memorandum)

Mr. Thorne: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has examined the memorandum sent to him by the London dockers and stevedores concerning the transfer system, which contains twelve questions; and what he intends doing about the matter?

Mr. Bevin: This memorandum has not been sent directly to me, but I have seen a copy, and I note that it is not sponsored by a trade union. The questions raised in it are of the kind which could be brought by a trade union before the recognised joint machinery in the industry, and that is the proper course to take. I may say that meanwhile a number of points arising in connection with the transfer of dockers are already being discussed in accordance with the recognised procedure.

Mr. Thorne: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the document was presented to me by a delegation of dockers and stevedores from the London area?

Mr. Bevin: It is quite true it was presented to my hon. Friend by a delegation of dockers, but I do not think it was passed to him by the executive of a union.

Mobile Women Workers, Scotland (Appeals)

Mr. J. J. Davidson: asked the Minister of Labour the total number of appeals, on compassionate grounds, against being transferred to other parts of the country made by women in the Maryhill Division of Glasgow, and the total number of appeals granted up to date?

Mr. Bevin: I am having inquiries made and will communicate with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Davidson: Will my right hon. Friend keep in mind that those figures will be very important to enable Members of the House to meet any criticisms which may be made with regard to those transfers?

Mr. Bevin: All I can do is to see that the hon. Member gets accurate figures.

Food Shops, Glasgow (Key Women)

Mr. Davidson: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has fully considered the resolution from the Glasgow and District Co-operative Conference Association regarding the calling up of women holding key positions in the society's food shops; and has he any statement to make?

Mr. Bevin: I am making inquiries into the matter raised in the resolution and will communicate with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Davidson: In his inquiries, will my right hon. Friend consider instructing his Departmental officials to make a further scrutiny with regard to women employed in luxury and unnecessary industries before taking away those key women from the food industry?

Mr. Bevin: I shall decide what to do when I have got the results of the inquiries.

Mr. Davidson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that while this inquiry with regard to women employed in the key industry of food distribution is taking place, there are, in London newspapers, advertisements of cabaret shows and other such things which are completely unnecessary, during the war?

Mr. Mathers: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the very widespread feeling among co-operative societies that they are unduly restricted in regard to the keeping of key people for the distribution of food?

Mr. Bevin: I do not think that is true of the Co-operative movement as an organised body. They have been treated well, and the matter has been discussed with them in all its details from time to time.

Cotton Industry

Mr. Burke: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the shortage of labour in certain sections of the cotton industry; and whether he has any specific proposals to deal with the matter?

Mr. Bevin: I would refer my hon. Friend to the Reply I gave him on 17th December last, to which I have at present nothing to add.

Mr. Burke: Does that mean that further steps are in contemplation to relieve the situation in this industry, as in certain sections the position is very bad, and it is not desirable that such overtime should be worked?

Mr. Bevin: There are many questions arising in this matter—shipping, raw materials, allocations—and I have to relate the whole thing to the forward progress.

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD AGE PENSIONERS

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: asked the Minister of Health whether, in his plan to improve the lot of old age pensioners,

he will consider the provision of hostels and clubs?

The Minister of Health (Mr. Ernest Brown): I hope that it wilt in due course be possible to make such provision for all old people who need it, whether pensioners or not.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind especially the position of old age pensioners in country districts, where they are often very lonely?

Mr. Brown: Certainly. As my hon. and gallant Friend knows, during the war period we have taken certain steps in that direction.

Mr. Tinker: Would not the proper thing to do be to raise the basic rate of old age pensions so as to give a decent standard of living?

Mr. Brown: That does not cover this particular issue. These are cases where old people want looking after.

Mr. Ness Edwards: asked the Minister of Health why he has authorised the Assistance Board to take into account, for the purpose of reducing supplementary pensions, subsistence allowances paid to old age pensioners who are members of the Home Guard, who are carrying out orders issued to them by their commanding officers?

Mr. Brown: The payments to which my hon. Friend refers are not protected by Statute, and the extent to which they are taken into account in determining supplementary pensions is a matter for the officers of the Assistance Board, subject to appeal to the Appeal Tribunals. The Board inform me, however, that the general practice is not to take any part of the payments into account unless it appears that there has been a substantial saving in the pensioner's ordinary domestic expenditure.

Mr. Edwards: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the subsistence allowance paid to old age pensioners who are in the Home Guard is taken into account to reduce their supplementary pensions, and will he prevent exploitation of their loyalty?

Mr. Brown: Circumstances vary a good deal. If the hon. Member has any particular cases, I will look into them and ask the Board to review them.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Houses and Flats (Key Money)

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the growing practice of demanding key-money, varying from £5 to £50, as a pre-condition to the letting of houses and flats; and what steps he has taken, or proposes to take, to stop this practice?

Mr. E. Brown: No, Sir, but the matter is fully covered by Section 8 of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1920, and the First Schedule to the Act of 1939, which provide that a person shall not as a condition of the grant, renewal or continuance of a tenancy or sub-tenancy of a controlled house require the payment of any fine, premium or other sum, or the giving of any pecuniary consideration in addition to the rent, and that any person requiring such a payment shall be liable to a fine not exceeding £100. Any contravention of these provisions should be brought at once to the notice of the local authority who have power to take legal proceedings; and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me this opportunity to make the position clear.

Mr. Griffiths: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this bears very heavily upon people who are transferred by Government order and who have to move to strange places where they have no local contacts, and is he further aware that the provisions to which he has referred are inadequate to stop this practice, which is going on all over the country?

Mr. Brown: They seem to me to be fully adequate, provided the persons themselves will supply the evidence on which alone the local authority can act.

Mr. Griffiths: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these people, when they are pressed to get accommodation for their families, often have to agree and, therefore, cannot give this evidence?

Mr. Brown: It is difficult to see how any law can operate if the people concerned will not co-operate with those who make the laws for their protection.

Mr. Astor: Will my right hon. Friend ask local authorities to take aggressive action on their own initiative to stop this practice?

Mr. Brown: They are unable to do that by the terms of the law unless they can provide legal evidence in order to make the law effective.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Owing to the importance of this matter, I beg to give notice that I shall raise it on the Adjournment.

Property Insurance

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the fact that insurance companies are circularising owners of house property urging them to increase the insurance cover for these properties by 25 per cent. or more; and, as these circulars tend to increase the price of vacant houses whether he will take steps to prevent the circulation of these circulars?

Mr. E. Brown: My attention has not been specially drawn to the practice to which my hon. Friend refers, nor have I any power to issue directions to insurance companies in the sense suggested. I have, however, no evidence that the practice is having any appreciable effect on the price of houses.

Condition of House, Carmarthenshire

Mr. Clement Davies: asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the condition of a house in the county of Carmarthen, owned by a local authority in that county and occupied by a woman and her children, which has been described as unfit for the housing of animals; and what steps he has taken, or is taking with regard to the matter.

Mr. E. Brown: I am having the matter looked into and will communicate with my hon. and learned Friend as soon as possible.

Mr. Davies: Has my right hon. Friend ascertained whether the report that I sent him is right, that this house is subject to periodical flooding, the walls are damp, that already one of this woman's children has died of pneumonia, and that the matter is urgent?

Mr. Brown: I will let my right hon. and learned Friend know as soon as I receive a full report.

Workers, Slough

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Minister of Health whether he has now had time and opportunity to


inquire into the accommodation for workers at Slough; and what steps he proposes to take.

Mr. E. Brown: Yes, Sir. As I explained to my hon. and gallant Friend and to my hon. Friend the Member for Eye (Mr. Granville) the Town Council and the neighbouring local authorities, with the assistance of a specially appointed officer of the Ministry, have made arrangements under which action is being concentrated on the finding of improved accommodation for those who most need it. Despite the difficulties of the situation one-half of the worst cases have already been dealt with, and I hope that the remainder will soon be re-housed. As my hon. and gallant Friend appreciates, the problem, which is mainly one of family accommodation, cannot be fully solved either in Slough or in many other places, until house building is resumed, but I understand that, if necessary, a hostel for single workers will shortly be opened.

Sir A. Knox: Is there any prospect of obtaining labour and material to start the erection of houses?

Mr. Brown: Not at the moment. I shall be very glad when it is possible.

Farm Workers' Cottages (Building Scheme)

Sir Percy Hurd: asked the Minister of Health whether he is in a position to make any statement about the building of cottages for farm workers.

Mr. E. Brown: Yes, Sir. The Government have authorised preliminary arrangements being made for the building by local authorities of a limited number of cottages for farm workers. Increased food production has aggravated the existing shortage, and the cottages will be built where the need is most acute. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and I have already been in consultation with the Rural District Councils Association, who have promised full support for the scheme. Preliminary preparations are being made on the basis of 3,000 cottages, but the number which can be built during 1943 will depend on the labour and materials which can be made available, having regard to the requirements of other vital schemes. The cottages will be built in villages on sites agreed with the county

war agricultural executive committees and will be let to selected agricultural workers. A circular explaining the Scheme is being sent to-day to the rural district councils concerned, a list of which has been placed in the Library.

Sir. P. Hurd: I take it from the answer that my right hon. Friend has received assurances that rural district councils in about 500 parishes will co-operate heartily with the Ministry of Health, and the war agricultural committees to ensure the success of this useful scheme?

Mr. Brown: My right hon. Friend and I had the opportunity of seeing the executive of the Association of Rural District Councils, and they promised their hearty co-operation.

Captain Poole: Will the question of prefabricated dwellings be taken into consideration?

Mr. Brown: That is another question.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH

Nursing Profession (Committee's Report)

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Health whether he has received the Report of the Rushcliffe Committee that has considered the salaries and conditions of nurses; what action is to be taken; and, in view of the urgency of the need for giving nurses encouragement and confidence, will he treat this matter as one of urgency?

Mr. E. Brown: I hope to receive the Report by the end of this week and to announce my action on it next week.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Is it not a fact that nurses are still overworked and underpaid?

Mr. Brown: The hon. and gallant Gentleman had better wait until he sees the Report.

Mr. William Brown: asked the Minister of Health when he anticipates that the Report of the Departmental Committee on Conditions in the Nursing Profession will be available?

Mr. E. Brown: I hope that copies of the Report will be available in the Vote Office on this day week.

Mr. W. Brown: In view of the very great delay that there has been in getting


this Report, can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that no time will be lost in making up his mind as to the action of his Department?

Mr. E. Brown: I must not be taken as accepting the assumption of delay. The House will see, when they read the Report, how complicated the problem is. My Noble Friend and his colleagues have had to consult different interests concerned, and it has been a long and difficult piece of work.

Sir Francis Fremantle: Is it an interim or a final Report?

Mr. E. Brown: A first Report.

War-time Nurseries

Major Peto: asked the Minister of Health whether the entire accommodation in war-time nurseries is fully taken up; and, if not, whether he can take any steps to increase their popularity?

Mr. E. Brown: The returns which I receive show that in general the nurseries are well occupied. Their existence is usually well known in the districts in which they are opened, and I do not think there is any need for further general publicity at the present time. If my hon. and gallant Friend has any particular case in mind, I shall be glad to look into it.

Mr. Wakefield: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much man-power saving there has been as a result of these war-time nurseries?

Mr. Brown: Not in answer to this Question.

Young Persons, Wales (Medical Service)

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: asked the Minister of Health whether he will make arrangements for the provision of free diagnostic assistance for young insured persons in Wales, between the ages of 15 and 25, who are referred to the regional medical service by their panel doctor and, where necessary, hospital and convalescent home treatment in a State-aided hospital on the lines of similar provision by the Scottish Department in the Clyde Valley?

Mr. E. Brown: The staff of the Department's Regional Medical Service is engaged on various war duties, and consequently the procedure to which my hon. Friend refers is not practicable in England

and Wales. The diagnostic and other facilities of hospitals in England and Wales have been augmented in a number of ways under the Emergency Hospital Scheme, and I have no reason to suppose that they are not available to patients referred by their doctors. If my hon. Friend knows of any cases of industrial workers requiring and not obtaining suitable diagnostic and other treatment, I shall be glad to receive particulars.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some county insurance committees have passed resolutions in favour of this?

Mr. Brown: I am aware of my right hon. Friend's scheme, and it has my support.

Maternity Beds, London

Dr. Summerskill: asked the Minister of Health what action is being taken to increase the hospital accommodation for maternity cases in London?

Mr. E. Brown: During 1942 the maternity beds in the L.C.C. hospitals were increased by approximately 220, bringing the total number of maternity beds in L.C.C. hospitals to approximately 627. During the same period the maternity beds in the voluntary hospitals in the County of London were increased by 165, bringing the total number of maternity beds in these hospitals to approximately 515. These are in addition to the 2,700 beds in emergency Maternity Homes in reception areas and the houses in the country to which many London homes have been removed. Both the L.C.C. and the voluntary hospitals hope to provide more maternity beds in the near future if staff can be found.

Dr. Summerskill: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, although there has been some small increase, the demand is much greater than the supply and that this grave shortage is causing concern to the medical personnel and much distress to expectant mothers?

Mr. Brown: We are doing everything we can to increase the accommodation.

Mr. Astor: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many expectant mothers are now being sent to country hospitals to have their babies and are not being given their fares back? Will he remedy that situation?

Mr. Brown: I have already considered the position.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: What positive action is the right hon. Gentleman taking to provide the necessary staff for these maternity wards? Is he aware that hospitals in the County of London area cannot even get the staff to satisfy their needs and that some wards remain closed because of that problem?

Mr. Brown: The action is a continuing process.

Dr. Summerskill: Will the right hon. Gentleman remember that maternity is also a continuing process?

Pasteurisation Plant, Buxton (Loan)

Dr. Summerskill: asked the Minister of Health why the Buxton local authority was refused a grant towards a pasteurisation plant, in view of the fact that the medical advisers to his Ministry are of the opinion that the pasteurisation of milk would reduce the incidence of non-pulmonary tuberculosis?

Mr. E. Brown: The Buxton Town Council have not asked me for a grant, but they asked whether sanction would be given to a loan for the purpose mentioned. I am advised that there is no statutory authority under which the Council could establish such an undertaking, and the Council have been so informed. As the hon. Lady is aware, the question of securing the maximum supply of heat-treated milk is being fully explored.

Dr. Summerskill: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to acquire powers in order to help those local authorities which are anxious to provide milk free from tubercular infection?

Mr. Brown: I am in consultation on this matter with the Minister of Food.

Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: Does not my right hon. Friend realise that too much pasteurisation reduces the quality of the milk?

Mr. Purbrick: Are not the evils of pasteurisation far greater than its benefits?

Mr. David Adams: Does not the Minister consider the position highly inconsistent that he authorises large expenditure upon the cure of milk-borne diseases, whilst unable to agree to aid in

the purchase of machinery for the prevention of these diseases?

Mr. Brown: There is no question of refusing a grant here.

Tuberculosis, London (Death-Rate)

Mr. Douglas: asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to a statement by the County Medical Officer of Health for London that the death-rate from pulmonary tuberculosis in London rose from 0.64 in 1938 to 1.10 in 1941, and that the death-rate from non-pulmonary tuberculosis rose in the same period from 0.09 to 0.15, or an increase in the death-rate from all forms of tuberculosis from 0.73 to 1.25; and whether he has any statement to make on these figures?

Mr. E. Brown: Yes, Sir. On the second part of the Question I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply of 26th November last to his Question on this subject.

Mr. Douglas: Do not the figures show that the incidence of tuberculosis had risen very much more in London and the large towns than in the country? How does the Minister reconcile that with 90 per cent. pasteurisation of milk in London?

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is well aware of the reasons for the differences, which were in some part due to the change in the basis of classification owing to the international standard.

Oral Answers to Questions — WIDOWS' PENSIONS

Mr. Wootton-Davies: asked the Minister of Health the allowance payable to the widow of a merchant seaman with six children under the age of 10 and to the widow of a war worker, dead from overstrain, with a similar number of children, respectively; and how these payments compare with the pension of a widow of a private in the Army?

Mr. E. Brown: The widow's pension and children allowances payable under the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Acts to widows of insured men falling within any of the three categories and having the number of children mentioned by my hon. Friend would amount to 30s. a week. The widow of a private in the Army or of a man of corresponding rank in the Mercantile Marine would, however, have an alternative title


to pension and allowances of 63s. 6d. in any case in which the circumstances of the husband's death enabled an award to be made under the Mercantile Marine Scheme or the Royal Warrant.

Mr. Wootton-Davies: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that there is far too wide a range between these two cases?

Mr. Brown: That is a much wider issue than is covered by my own Departmental responsibility.

Mr. George Griffiths: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think he should at least compete with the Secretary of State for War to see that the widow and children of a man who has died from overstrain in producing munitions should have the same allowance as the widow of a private soldier? It is time the right hon. Gentleman woke up.

Mr. Brown: The issues concerned do not merely concern me, but my right hon. Friends the Minister of Pensions, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other Ministers.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES AND CIVILIANS (PENSIONS AND GRANTS)

Mr. Ness Edwards: asked the Minister of Pensions whether the first £1 of earnings, which is ignored in the case of the wife of a serving man for the purpose of calculating any war-service grant that may be due, also applies in the case of a widowed mother who was wholly dependent upon her serving son?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions (Mr. Paling): This matter has been carefully considered, but I am unable to add anything to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave to a similar Question on 10th December last.

Mr. Edwards: Is not the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the announcement was made that the first £1 of earnings for the purpose of calculating War Service Grant would be disregarded in the case of wives of serving men? Why cannot a dependent mother have the same disregard?

Mr. Paling: The reply was given in the answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Edwards: Will the Parliamentary Secretary try and give a reply to the question as to the reasons the Government have for refusing to treat a widowed dependent mother the same as the wife of a serving man?

Mr. Paling: I had better read the main portion of the reply:
The disregard of the first 15s. or 20s. of wives for War Service Grants purposes was approved in order to provide a special inducement to the wives of serving men to undertake paid employment assisting the war effort The information at present at my disposal does not lead me to think that the present rule operates to deter dependants other than wives from accepting employment assisting the war effort."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th December, 1942, col. 1707, Vol. 385.]

Mr. Edwards: Does not the same consideration apply to wholly dependent mothers? In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: asked the Minister of Pensions whether his attention has been called to the case of Mrs. Lawrence, of 23, Northcroft Road, West Ewell, who, although her husband was granted a 100. per cent. disability pension on the grounds that his disability was due to war service, from the effects of which disability he subsequently died, has been refused a pension on the grounds that her husband's disability should never have been accepted as due to service, although it was, in fact, so accepted?

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): Yes, Sir. As I have explained to my hon. and gallant Friend, Mrs. Lawrence appealed against the Ministry's decision to the Pensions Appeal Tribunal, whose decision is final by statute, and her appeal was disallowed.

Sir A. Southby: Cutting out all the legal aspects of the case, does it not remain the fact that while this woman's husband was alive he was paid 100 per cent. disability pension on the ground that his disability was due to his service, and that he died of that disability? Does it not remain a fact that the woman, who has been deprived of her husband and breadwinner, is being paid nothing at all?

Sir W. Womersley: She is in receipt of a contributory pension, and that is not a question of getting nothing at all. I have no power to intervene where the appeals tribunal have given a decision.

Sir A. Southby: If the Minister's doctors made a mistake in the first place, should he not stand by the opinion they then gave?

Sir W. Womersley: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member can explain how I can do it.

Mr. Gallacher: Surely he can do it. There are too many of these cases.

Captain C. S. Taylor: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will reconsider his decision not to award a pension to the widow of Sidney J. Thompson, late 1515801.A.C.1, Royal Air Force, in view of the fact that there was no post-mortem?

Sir W. Womersley: As the hon. and gallant Member will recollect, I gave him the facts of this case by letter on 1st January. I am advised that the circumstances of Mr. Thompson's death show it to have been due to a common form of cardio-vascular disease which is not adversely affected by such conditions of service as were experienced by Mr. Thompson. I regret that I am consequently unable to grant Mrs. Thompson a war pension.

Captain Taylor: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this man was subjected to some strenuous treatment in Scotland before he died, and is he aware that this case is causing great dissatisfaction among very reputable people in my constituency?

Sir W. Womersley: I think I had better invite the hon. and gallant Member to come to my room after Questions and see the full evidence. I am sure that he will then have quite a different opinion about this case.

Mr. Davidson: asked the Minister of Pensions the number of fatal accidents to members of the Armed Forces while not actually on duty and the number of pensions granted in these circumstances?

Sir W. Womersley: I regret that the information desired by the hon. Member is not available and could not be obtained without a disproportionate expenditure of time and labour.

Mr. Davidson: In view of the fact that according to Members of the House there have been a considerable number of fatal

accidents to men in the Forces and that, despite widespread opinion, their dependants are being refused any pensions, will the right hon. Gentleman immediately scrutinise the position and make a statement to the House?

Sir W. Womersley: The hon. Member is very much out of date. If he kept in close touch with Parliamentary proceedings, he would know that I have altered considerably the conditions applying to these cases. I am always prepared to consider any aspect of pension cases if I think it can be done with justice to the men concerned and to the taxpayers.

Mr. Burke: Is it not a fact that men in uniform who are injured in an accident when being taken to different parts of the country do not get any pension because at the moment they were not actually on active service?

Sir W. Womersley: I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is also a little out of date. If he would look up particulars of these accident cases, he would come to a better understanding of them.

Mr. Burke: If I am out of date, will the right hon. Gentleman alter the decision in a case which I gave him last week and which was turned down?

Mr. Messer: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he has considered the case of a war widow, whose name and address have been sent to him, who is in receipt of 15s. 1d. per week, public assistance, from the Middlesex County Council; and whether, in view of the number of cases of Service widows seeking public assistance, he will review Service widows' pensions?

Sir W. Womersley: The widow in question is in receipt of a pension, with allowances for her two children, amounting to £2 1s. 6d. a week, which is in accordance with the scales laid down in the Royal Warrant. I am not aware that any appreciable number of war widows are receiving public assistance, and I regret that I cannot undertake to review the rates of pension.

Mr. Messer: Does not the Minister consider it deplorable that the widow of a man who has given his life for the country should have to seek public assistance?

Sir W. Womersley: The hon. Member did me the honour of sending a letter at


the same time as he put down the Question giving me details of this case. He must admit that they are exceptional. I am prepared to discuss this matter with him after Questions.

Mr. Messer: Will the Minister take it from me as a member of the public assistance committee that this is by no means an exceptional case?

Sir W. Womersley: Will the hon. Member bring me other cases? He asked me a Question on this subject about six months ago, and I have been waiting for the cases, but they have not come along.

Miss Rathbone: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries from public assistance authorities as to how many war widows are receiving assistance?

Captain Taylor: May I ask whether we have to go along in a bunch to my right hon. Friend's room?

Mr. W. H. Green: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will consider the extension of compensation for injuries received during fire duties by youths and girls between 16 to 18 years of age who are voluntarily carrying out fire-guard duties?

Sir W. Womersley: Youths and girls of the age of 16 or 17 years who are properly enrolled for fire-guard duties are eligible for compensation under the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme if they sustain injuries arising out of and in the course of their duties.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA

Armed Forces (Duty-free Tobacco)

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has now received a reply to his telegraphic communications to the Government of India regarding the import of cigarettes and tobacco duty free to British troops serving in India?

The Secretary of State for India (Mr. Amery): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox) on 28th January.

Mr. Bellenger: That answer escaped my notice. Could the right hon. Gentleman say what was the purport of it?

Mr. Amery: It was to the effect that the Government of India have cancelled previous orders as to the exclusion of tobacco from the concession respecting Indian Customs duty on these gift parcels.

Population Statistics

Mr. Lambert: asked the Secretary of State for India the increase in the population of India for each of the last four Census returns?

Mr. Amery: The figures of total population of India according Jo the Census of 1941 were 389,000,000, compared with 338,119,000 in 1931, 305,674,000 in 1921 and 302,995,000 in 1911.

Mr. Lambert: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that this increase in population shows that British rule in India has not been arbitrary or harsh?

Mr. Sorensen: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that his answer means that British rule in India has led to increased fertility?

Mr. Amery: I think it has.

Food Prices and Wages

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for India whether he will give the prevailing prices of main foodstuffs in India in comparison with 1939 prices, particularly in the areas threatened with dearth; and the average wages now being paid to Indian railway, textile, mining and munition workers compared with 1939?

Mr. Amery: The information is not available in this country, but I will ask the Government of India whether they can conveniently furnish it.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with this disparity between wages and the cost of foodstuffs in India at the present time?

Mr. Amery: These matters are undoubtedly the concern of the Provincial Governments, and it is for them to be satisfied.

Mr. Sorensen: But surely the right hon. Gentleman is constantly advising the Government of India of our interest in this matter?

Mr. Amery: We always wish to improve conditions.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE

Cycle Lamp Batteries

Mr. Wakefield: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that, owing to the inability of workers to obtain electric batteries, prosecutions are taking place because the worker is without lights on his bicycle; and whether he will stop these prosecutions until such batteries are available?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I have no power to take any such action as is suggested in the second part of the Question, but I have no doubt that in considering whether to prosecute in any individual case the police will take into account any mitigating circumstances. I think I ought, however, to emphasise that riding bicycles without a light constitutes a serious danger not only to pedestrians and other users of the road but to the bicyclists themselves.

Mr. Wakefield: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that workers unable to have lights on their bicycles are frequently late for work and are prosecuted for continual absenteeism, and is it right that workers should be prosecuted whatever they do? There must be some way out.

Mr. Morrison: There are two things to be said. One is that as long as the law exists it must be administered. The other point is the supply of lamps, and I think the latter is the best remedy, and I can assure my hon. Friend that the appropriate Departments are dealing with that matter.

Dr. Russell Thomas: If the law is an ass, should it not be changed?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir, but the law is not an ass in this respect.

Northern Ireland Border

Dr. Little: asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the statement that has been placed before him regarding the displacement of members of the Home Guard and Special Constabulary on the border in Northern Ireland, who are responsible for the local defence service, by Eire national workers, he will take steps to see that these defenders of our country are kept in regular employment?

Mr. H. Morrison: I observe the date of the newspaper of which my hon. Friend kindly sent me an extract is 7th January, and the statements contained in it refer apparently to a period before the coming into force of the new permit system.

Dr. Little: In the interests of public security, will the right hon. Gentleman make provision whereby it would be impossible to displace workmen who are on Defence service by day and night in their spare time by workers from outside Northern Ireland, and whereby foremen disregarding this arrangement should be at once dismissed?

Mr. Morrison: I have no doubt that these considerations will be borne in mind by the Government of Northern Ireland in administering the new powers.

Railway Trains (Lighting)

Sir L. Lyle: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that a statement was issued from his Department on 19th January, in connection with improved lighting in trains, tending to lead the public to believe improved lighting would be available before long in the majority of trains; and as, in view of the difficulties of obtaining material and labour it will take a long time before improved lighting can be fitted in the majority of passenger rolling stock, he will make a further statement on the subject?

Mr. H. Morrison: The statement to which my hon. Friend refers gave the specific warning "that some time must elapse before the full effect of the changes becomes operative." As regards the second part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given him yesterday by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport.

Fire-Guard Duties

Mr. W. H. Green: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that numbers of friendly aliens, engaged in business in the City of London, escape duty under the Business Premises Fire Prevention Order, leaving the City each evening for the country; and will he consider bringing them under the terms of the Order?

Mr. H. Morrison: It is proposed to render certain classes of aliens liable for compulsory fire-guard duties, subject to certain conditions. An Order will be


issued as soon as the necessary consultations have been completed. In the meantime, aliens may volunteer for fire-guard duties.

Mr. Green: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the widespread feeling in the City, among those who are patriotically doing their duty, at these people being able to shirk the issue? Will he take steps as expeditiously as possible to bring them into line and compel them to do their duty?

Mr. Morrison: I am aware of some feeling to that effect, and, believe me, I am anxious to do what I can to meet it, but there are international considerations involved. In the meantime aliens themselves can easily put the matter right by volunteering for service.

Mr. Cluse: Is it not the case that this applies all the way round and that it is not a question of aliens who have recently come to this country but of thousands of aliens who were born in this country and not naturalised? Are they all outside the regulations of the Fire-Watching Order?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir, many aliens are outside the Fire-Watching Order. I agree that there is much truth in what the hon. Member has said.

Miss Rathbone: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are a great many aliens who would like to volunteer but that the regulations of curfew and so on have made it difficult for them to do so?

Mr. Morrison: No, Sir, that is not true.

Mr. W. H. Green: asked the Home Secretary whether he is now in a position to say whether leaders and captains of street fire-guard groups can be exempt from the Business Premises Fire Prevention Order?

Mr. Morrison: Provision will be made in the forthcoming amendment to the Business Premises Order for the exemption of fire guard street captains (in future to be known as sector captains) and fire guard party leaders.

Proposed Public Meeting, London

Mr. Driberg: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that an organisation which advocates peace by negotiation with Hitler and distributes pro-Nazi, anti-parliamentary and anti-Semitic propaganda,

is proposing to hold a public meeting at a London theatre in the near future; and whether he will take steps to prevent the holding of such a meeting as likely to provoke a breach of the peace?

Mr. H. Morrison: While watch is being kept on the activities of this organisation, my present information does not suggest that this meeting is likely to attract so much public interest that serious disorder is to be apprehended; and it would, I think, be premature for me to decide at the present date whether there are sufficient grounds for prohibiting the meeting under Defence Regulation 39E.

Mr. Driberg: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that only last night there was a deplorable exhibition of hooliganism at Finsbury, where the memorial of Lenin was broken up and tarred and placarded with Fascist slogans? Will he bear in mind that these people do seem to be getting rather uppish again and require a sharp check?

Mr. Morrison: I will certainly look into the incident to which the hon. Member refers. If it is true, it is much to be deplored, but I am between two fires. The hon. Member wants me to be harsher, and there are other hon. Members sitting near me who are always anxious that I should be much more lenient.

Mr. Driberg: Well, they show what side they are on?

Sir I. Albery: Is the right hon. Gentleman not quite well aware that nobody on this side of the House tries to prevent him from dealing with people who commit offences?

Mr. Thorne: Is there any objection to my right hon. Friend giving the name of the organisation?

Mr. Morrison: I forget what it is, but I think there is point in the fact that we do not want to advertise these things.

Oral Answers to Questions — APPROVED SCHOOLS AND REMAND HOMES

Mr. Channon: asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the growing need, he can now make any further statement as to the provision of increased accommodation in approved schools and remand homes?

Mr. H. Morrison: During the last two years 24 new approved schools have been opened. Eight others are in course of preparation, and negotiations are in progress for certain other premises. In the same period schemes for 36 new remand homes have been started and of these 24 have been opened and seven others should be opening shortly. I am glad to say that the number of boys and girls awaiting admission to approved schools is now somewhat lower than it was a year ago. I hope that before the end of the present year there may be a substantial improvement in the present position.

Sir Ralph Glyn: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the number of young persons awaiting accommodation?

Mr. Morrison: I could not say that without notice.

Sir P. Hurd: asked the Home Secretary how many girls have absconded from approved schools in the last three months; and how many have been arrested by the police and why?

Mr. Morrison: In the last three months of 1942, 167 girls absconded from approved schools. The great majority have returned within a short time, some of their own accord, some as a result of steps taken by their parents, and others brought back by the police. Section 82 of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, empowers the police to apprehend absconders and bring them before the court, but in many cases it is unnecessary for the police to do more than to bring the child back to the school in the same way as they bring to his home any child who is lost or has strayed.

Sir P. Hurd: Has the right hon. Gentleman received representations that although these national figures may seem small, it is a serious matter in constituencies like mine, where these girls are a perfect pest around the camps, and that magistrates, local police and the military authorities are puzzled to know what to do with these girls? Cannot they be restricted by the managers of approved schools?

Mr. Morrison: I am aware of the point to which the hon. Member draws attention, but all sorts of girls are all sorts of problems to all sorts of people. We could, of course, lock them in, but my

own experience on a management committee of one of these approved schools leads me to believe that the psychological effect of locking them in is worse than not doing so.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE REGULATIONS

Flight-Lieutenant Raikes: asked the Prime Minister whether he will give an assurance that in future no order, rules or by-laws will be made in pursuance of a Defence Regulation which is inconsistent with the provisions of enactments other than the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939.

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): When for the purposes of the defence of the realm or the successful prosecution of the war a Defence Regulation has been made authorising a Minister to make orders varying some specified statutory enactment, I clearly could not give an assurance that no use will be made of this power. If, however, my hon. and gallant Friend's point is that any variation of statutory enactments should be effected by a provision in a new Defence Regulation rather than by an order made under a Defence Regulation, I recognise the force of this consideration, and it is one that is constantly kept in mind. There are, however, cases in which the only appropriate or practicable method of effecting particular variations of statutory enactments is by means of subordinate orders. For example, this is the only appropriate way of effecting temporary or local variations of some statutory provision to meet some exceptional emergency. Again, when it is necessary to control a particular undertaking or class of undertakings and to relieve the undertakers from some statutory obligation or limitation, this can only be done by particular orders. It would clearly be impracticable to make a new Defence Regulation on every occasion when some fresh undertaking or group of undertakings is brought under control.

Sir Irving Albery: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether that answer was drafted before or after the Debate which took place yesterday?

Mr. Attlee: I am not aware of the precise hour of the day when the Question was drafted. I know when it came to me. I presume it was after. I do not know.

Mr. Holdsworth: May I ask whether in addition to what was suggested yesterday the right hon. Gentleman will give consideration to the drafting of any other new Regulations?

Mr. Attlee: I think one must deal with these matters on their merits. It is very difficult to answer without notice about specific points which are rather in the air.

Sir I. Albery: Will the right hon. Gentleman give personal consideration to the points Which were made in the Debate which came at the end of the proceedings yesterday?

Mr. Attlee: Yes, I am doing so.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman also inform the head of the Government that the ordinary people of this country will have noted that Regulations of this character were regarded as being all right as long as they affected only ordinary people, but that as soon as they affected big interests then another situation arose?

Oral Answers to Questions — CASABLANCA CONFERENCE

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Prime Minister whether Russia was consulted before the decision to hold a conference at Casablanca was made; and why no Russian representatives, either military or civil, were present at the conversations?

Mr. Attlee: My hon. Friend will see from the communiqué issued after the Casablanca Conference that Mr. Stalin was invited to join President Roosevelt and the Prime Minister in a conference at a place convenient to himself, but was unable, for reasons which can readily be appreciated, to accept. In these circumstances the conference was held at Casablanca, which in other respects was more convenient.

Mr. Bellenger: I am well aware of what was stated in the communiqué, but will the right hon. Gentleman say whether there were prior consultations with the Russians and whether they were invited to a conference of this nature; and can he give the real reason why there were no military or civil representatives of Russia at the conference?

Mr. Attlee: In reply to the first part of the Supplementary Question, the answer is, "Yes." With regard to the

second part, that is really a matter for the decision of the Soviet Government rather than a question for us.

Mr. Shinwell: If Stalin, for good and sufficient reasons, found himself unable to attend a conference at Casablanca or elsewhere, were the Soviet Government asked to send other representatives, military or diplomatic, to attend the conference; and in particular why was it that in the case of the conference that was arranged with the Turkish Government, so important from the Russian standpoint, Russians were not invited to attend? Is there no answer to that?

Oral Answers to Questions — PRE-NATAL ALLOWANCE (ARMY OFFICERS' WIVES)

Captain C. S. Taylor: asked the Lord President of the Council whether, in view of the fact that the Army pay system is to be simplified, His Majesty's Government will arrange for officers' wives to receive the new ante-natal children's allowances which have been granted to the wives of other ranks?

The Lord President of the Council (Sir John Anderson): No, Sir. I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on 26th January to the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger). The simplification which my right hon. Friend is introducing in certain details of the Army pay system is not concerned with allowances and does not appear to me to have a bearing on the Question raised.

Mr. A. Edwards: Will the Minister bear in mind in making any alteration that many officers in this country receiving allowances for their wives do not allow the money to go to their wives, and see whether there could be a compulsory allocation as in the case of the Dominion Services?

Sir J. Anderson: I do not think that question has anything to do with the Question on the Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Women's Land Army

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: asked the Minister of Agriculture the limitations to the enrolment in the Women's Land Army of women with knowledge of, and employment in, agriculture; and the reasons of these limitations?

Mrs. Cazalet Keir: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will reconsider the decision which makes it impossible for women who have worked for six months on the land to join the Women's Land Army?

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): The purpose of the Women's Land Army is to recruit and place in agriculture an additional force of mobile women workers and to regulate their accommodation, conditions of employment and general welfare. An organisation of that kind is not necessary for women who have already established themselves in agricultural employment, or for those who can only work near their own homes. Consequently, volunteers are not normally accepted for the Land Army if they have already been working in the industry for six months or more, or if they cannot offer mobile service.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: Is the Minister aware that the women who are working on the land at the present time who know they cannot get into the Women's Land Army in many cases go into other industries, and the land has lost their services? Will he consider opening the Women's Land Army to women who know agriculture, as those who go in often do not know anything about it at all?

Mr. Hudson: No, Sir, I have stated the reasons why I cannot do that.

Captain Poole: Is the Minister aware that if he will give better amenities and conditions, he will solve the problem of recruitment?

Tree Felling, Lincolnshire

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the effect on food production, he is watching the situation caused by the cutting down of trees in Lincolnshire on the rainfall of the county; and whether he is satisfied that the cutting down effected and proposed will not affect the rainfall?

Mr. Hudson: I see no reason to suppose that such tree-felling as is taking place in Lincolnshire will affect the rainfall, or have any detrimental effect on food production.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: Is the Minister aware that Lincolnshire has about the least average rainfall of any county in England and that in the experience of other countries deforestation reduces rainfall?

Mr. Hudson: There has been no felling of timber in the Kesteven and Holland Divisions, and in Lindsey the felling of hedgerow timber is likely to assist food production.

Mr. Sorensen: Does the Minister realise that deforestation is a great disadvantage, and is he doing anything to counterbalance the loss of trees by planting new ones?

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: Will the Minister go and see the trees?

Animal Diseases

Mr. David Adams: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, as many sheep die annually from diseases for which preventive vaccines exist, all farmers are fully informed of these; and whether it is obligatory in the national interest to use these preventive methods?

Mr. Hudson: Information as to the use and value of sera and vaccine for preventing sheep diseases has been disseminated widely by veterinary surgeons, by the Press, and in all other available ways. Since last summer veterinary inspectors of my Department have been specially detailed for advisory work in hill sheep farming areas and to bring the value of preventive treatment to the attention of sheep owners. The answer to the last part of the Question is in the negative.

Mr. Adams: In view of the very large number of these animals which are lost each year, does the Minister not consider that he ought to take powers to make it compulsory for these preventive measures to be used?

Mr. Hudson: No, Sir. It would not be practicable to make them obligatory.

Mr. Wootton-Davies: Would the Minister consider supplying these vaccines free?

Mr. Adams: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is satisfied that throughout the country adequate laboratory services are at the disposal of farmers and veterinary practitioners, so that diseases can be diagnosed and preventive measures adopted without delay?

Mr. Hudson: I am satisfied that the existing laboratory services are adequate for the present demand but that there is ample scope for making greater use of laboratory services for diagnosis of animal diseases.

Mr. Adams: Is the Minister aware that certain Border farmers are complaining about the lack of the facilities to-day?

Mr. Hudson: No complaints have reached me.

Seed Disinfection.

Major Thorneycroft: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the importance which he attaches to the increased production of spring cereals, he will consider making it compulsory on all farmers to disinfect their seed according to the best modern practice?

Mr. Hudson: I am only too anxious that all oat and barley seed should be dressed this spring with a mercury dressing to prevent disease and ensure maximum yield, but it is better, I think, to rely on propaganda and advice rather than compulsion. I have asked the war agricultural executive committees to carry out campaigns to this effect, and a great deal is being done.

Oral Answers to Questions — BEVERIDGE REPORT (ANONYMOUS LEAFLET)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Home Secretary whether he has considered the anonymous printed circular, a copy of which has been sent to him, advising the public to cash War Certificates and withdraw Post Office Savings Bank deposits if there is the slightest possibility of the Beveridge Plan being adopted; and as such advice is detrimental to the public interest and illegal both in respect of its context and also its absence of publishers' name and address, whether any steps are being taken to deal with this offence?

Mr. H. Morrison: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for sending to me a copy of this anonymous leaflet, which I had not seen before. While the pamphlet is couched in such extravagant terms that it is difficult to treat it seriously, I have no doubt that appropriate action will be taken if those responsible for infringing the law can be traced.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

Teachers (Availability)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the President of the Board of Education whether he has any estimate of the number of men and women teachers, respectively, that will be, and should be, available at the end of the war; the number required when the school-leaving age is raised to 15; whether he has estimated the number who will be required for elementary and for secondary schools five years hence if the school-leaving age is raised to 16 before then; and the extra training facilities which would be needed in that eventuality?

The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Butler): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 14th July to the hon. Member for the English Universities (Mr. Harvey), a copy of which I am sending to him.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that reply was really no reply, and will he therefore supplement his reference to the previous reply by giving me another reply now?

Mr. Butler: If the hon. Member will read the reply I am sending him, he will see that it really gives him quite a lot of information.

Mr. Sorensen: But not all the information I want.

School Base

Mr. Edmund Harvey: asked the President of the Board of Education whether he has considered details of the proposal for the School Base in connection with the development and reorganisation of the national education system; and whether he is yet in a position to make a statement thereon?

Mr. Butler: My hon. Friend will recollect that when he led a deputation to me on this subject a year ago I pointed out that the general ideas underlying the School Base have for many years been a feature of the Board's policy and accepted practice by local education authorities. At the same time I referred to certain practical objections to pressing the idea too far.

Mr. Harvey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many education authorities are making their plans and it is very important that they should have an idea of the proposal?

Mr. Butler: I have no doubt that the answer I have given to the Question of the hon. Member will fulfil that desired end.

Sir R. Glyn: Will my right hon. Friend give an indication to the House when this Bill is likely to be introduced?

Mr. Butler: I hope it will be as soon as it is ready.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Dollar Securities (Dividends)

Dr. Little: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the case of dollar securities being taken over by the Treasury, he will arrange that the dividends on the said securities be paid to holders of same up to the time they are handed over to the Treasury?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): Securities acquired by the Treasury under the Defence (Finance) Regulations become the property of the Treasury as from the date of the relevant Order or Direction, and any dividends falling due thereafter are in consequence the property of the Treasury, unless the security has been specifically acquired ex dividend.

Dr. Little: Does my right hon. Friend recognise what a hardship it is to the holders of these securities to lose the dividend payable up to the time they are taken over; and that I myself happen to be the trustee of a charitable trust and we lost £132 through that kind of thing?

Northern Ireland (Post-War Grants)

Dr. Little: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, from the contribution made annually by Northern Ireland to the Imperial Exchequer, he will, year by year, earmark a substantial sum towards a post-war credit fund to be handed over to the Government of Northern Ireland for grants towards housing, the financing of industry, agriculture, economic and other necessary services in the post-war period?

Sir K. Wood: I do not think it would be practicable or proper to earmark now any specific provision towards the cost of such services after the war, whether in Northern Ireland or in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Mathers: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, or does he agree, that the contribution of Scotland is far larger than that of Northern Ireland and that the need in respect of housing is urgent?

Evacuees, United States (Remittances from United Kingdom)

Mr. Viant: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the remittances of £10 per month permitted to be sent since January, 1942, to adult evacuees in the United States of America are payable to persons who have taken out first naturalisation papers there and are in gainful employment; and how many remittances are in fact being made to such persons?

Sir K. Wood: Remittances are normally allowed only to those adults who have gone out from this country to the United States in charge of children and remain so, and are not confined to British nationals. I have no information leading me to think that first naturalisation papers have been taken out by any such person.

Social Insurance (Cost)

Sir Geoffrey Shakespeare: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the anticipated cost of social insurance in 1965–66 on the assumption that the present system is maintained and the Beveridge proposals are not adopted?

Sir K. Wood: I am not at the moment in a position to give an estimate, but the matter is under examination, and I will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as the necessary inquiries are complete.

Sir G. Shakespeare: When we consider the estimated cost of the Beveridge Report in 20 years' time, are we not entitled to deduct from that increase the sum by which the social services would normally increase in that time?

Sir K. Wood: That is an argument which my hon. Friend will, no doubt, develop in due course.

Widows' Pensions

Mr. Messer: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the growing number of widows who are compelled to seek public assistance owing to the inadequacy of their pensions; and whether he is contemplating any change in


the law to increase widows' pensions or which will enable widows to qualify for supplementary pensions?

Sir K. Wood: I am not aware of any evidence that growing numbers of widows are applying for public assistance. As regards the second part of the Question, I am not at present in a position to add to the reply which I gave on 10th December to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend-on-Sea (Mr. Channon).

Armed Forces, India (Duty-Free Tobacco)

Sir A. Knox: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, as the Government of India has now agreed to allow the entry, duty free, of gift parcels of tobacco and cigarettes to sailors, soldiers and airmen of the British forces in India, he will announce that such parcels may be sent from this country free of British tax?

Mr. Assheton: Arrangements are now being made under which small parcels of tobacco, cigars or cigarettes weighing not less than 4 ounces net may, on and after 12th February, be sent by post, free of United Kingdom duty to members of His Majesty's Forces serving in India or Burma.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the Business for the next series of Sittings?

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): The Business will be as follows:
First Sitting Day—Second Reading of the Catering Wages Bill and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
Second Sitting Day—Second Reading of the War Damage (Amendment) Bill and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution; Second Reading of the House of Commons Disqualification Bill; Committee and remaining stages of the Universities and Colleges (Trusts) Bill.
Third Sitting Day—Committee stage of the Supplementary Estimates, beginning with Colonial and Middle Eastern Services (including a grant in aid to Malta); Committee and remaining stages of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill.
I am aware that the House is anxious to have a statement on the War Situation. The Government desire to meet the wishes of the House, and it will, therefore, be understood that the Business statement which I have made is subject to alteration.

Mr. Greenwood: Should it be that the war discussion were to take place on the first Sitting Day clearly there would have to be a substantial alteration of Business and the Second Reading of the Catering Wages Bill would come on another day?

Mr. Eden: On whichever day it comes, adjustments will be necessary in the Business arranged.

Sir Douglas Hacking: Arising out of the Business for the first Sitting Day, if the Government succeed in obtaining a Second Reading of the Bill on that day, will they consider referring the Bill to a Select Committee immediately after the Second Reading?

Mr. Eden: I am afraid that I cannot give my right hon. Friend that assurance.

Mr. Clement Davies: May I ask whether the statement on the War Situation will be made on the Adjournment, so as to give the House an opportunity of discussion, or will it be made as a statement and another opportunity for a full discussion given to the House soon afterwards?

Mr. Eden: I would have to consider that a little nearer the time. I would not like to give a committal now; probably, I imagine, on the Adjournment.

Commander Bower: May I ask the Leader of the House whether it is the intention of the Prime Minister to ask the House, in connection with the Catering Wages Bill, to release him from the pledge given that controversial legislation would not be introduced?

Mr. Eden: No, Sir. I think that my hon. and gallant Friend, when he hears the speech for the Second Reacting of the Bill, will satisfy himself that the Government have satisfied themselves that no such explanation is necessary.

Sir Percy Harris: Is it to be understood that mention of sweating is a controversial matter?

Sir L. Lyle: Is it not a fact that the Minister of Labour said it was not a sweated industry?

Major Markham: Can my right hon. Friend say whether time will be found in the near future for a discussion on the Beveridge Report?

Mr. Eden: Oh, yes, Sir, certainly, but I cannot give the exact date now.

Mr. Stokes: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he is yet able to give any indication when a day will be allotted for a full Debate on tank production and design; and further, is he aware that when the truth does come to light it will prove to be as big a scandal as the scandal of the shells in the last war?

Mr. Eden: I am afraid I am still unable to give satisfaction to my hon. Friend.

CHINA (PARLIAMENTARY MISSION)

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): On 10th September last you informed the House, Sir, that a Mission of Members of both Houses, Lord Ailwyn, Lord Teviot, and the hon. Members for West Renfrew (Mr. Wedderburn) and Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) had accepted an invitation from His Excellency Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek to visit China. The Mission has now returned, and I am sure hon. Members will wish to give its Members a warm welcome, and to congratulate them on the highly successful outcome of their journey. They have travelled, I am told, about 35,000 miles. They left this country by air last October; they arrived in China about 10th November. The accounts which I have received from all sources—and they are many—all indicate that their visit was an outstanding success. During a month spent in fulfilling an exhaustive programme, which included a visit to the battle front, they saw a variety of aspects of the Chinese war effort, and were able to explain to their Chinese hosts something of our own. They were also, I have no doubt, able to bring home to those with whom they came in contact the determination of this country, in collaboration with China and her other Allies, to pursue the war against Japan, no less than the other members of the Axis, to its inexorable and victorious end. In a country where tact and politeness are among the most highly valued of the virtues, the fact that representatives

of Parliament won the unqualified approval and esteem of their hosts is no small tribute to their qualities.
I would like to pay a tribute to the excellence of the arrangements made by the Chinese authorities for the care and entertainment of the Mission, and to thank in this respect their hosts, who maintained fully those high standards of courtesy and consideration which have made Chinese hospitality famous all over the world. I would like to add a word of thanks to the Chinese Ambassador to this country, Dr. Wellington Koo, who, though spending what was nominally a holiday, was assiduous in his attendance on the Mission and assisted them in their task of conveying to the Chinese people an understanding of the part which we are playing in the common cause. I should add that on their way home the Mission made a 10-days diversion to Turkey, thus being the forerunners of another interesting meeting, at the invitation of the Turkish Government, where they were most warmly and hospitably received and carried out a full and interesting programme. The House is deeply indebted to those of our. Members who by this work for us have done service to us, to the nation, and to our relations with China, and we sincerely thank them.

Mr. Lawson: I wonder whether the House would allow me to say a few words in reference to the kind welcome and the generous remarks the right hon. Gentleman has made concerning the results of the Mission? If the right hon. Gentleman's estimate is justified, it is not due to any particular virtues of the members of the Mission so much as to the great esteem in which this Parliament is held abroad. That has been to me an astonishing thing. But there is something else. We were fortunate enough to enter China just after the North African victory. I think this House and the country, and also the men who have been doing the fighting, ought to know that the repercussions of that victory have been, in China and in the world outside, wherever we have travelled, very great indeed. In view of the kindness and the enthusiasm of the Chinese people, both in crowded towns and in remote areas, an enthusiasm which was amazingly spontaneous, it would have been almost impossible not to be successful in our Mission. I want


to endorse what the right hon. Gentleman has said concerning Dr. Wellington Koo. The Chinese Government and its great leader, the Generalissimo, were the essence of kindness and care. The Chinese Ambassador accompanied us, and was very thoughtful about our welfare. The Chinese themselves are ever courteous and hospitable. The same applies to our staffs abroad, and in particular to the British Ambassador, Sir Horace Seymour. It has been an honourable thing to have been a member of a Mission representing this House—the first mission, I believe, that has ever been sent out by this House. It has been a very great thing to see in the various countries the admiration that the world has for the self-discipline and the self-denial of this country. So great has it been that we are glad to be back to share that self-discipline and self-denial, and proud to be members of a country such as this.

Mr. Wedderburn: I have only one word to add to what has been said by my hon. Friend. This is not the occasion on which to give any kind of account of our Mission, but my hon. Friend and I, who arrived home last night, both wish to take the earliest opportunity of telling our colleagues in this House of the extraordinary kindness and generosity which were extended to us and the great cordiality of the welcome displayed by all classes of the Chinese people towards us, who were representing the British Parliament. We travelled some 3,000 miles through Chinese territory, in three of their greatest Provinces, visiting Sian, Chengtu and Kunming, as well as Chungking. Everywhere, among all classes of people, we found a firm resolution to continue the struggle until our enemies have unconditionally surrendered. We found, equally, a strong desire among the whole people that the present comradeship in war between the British and the Chinese people shall be followed by a lasting friendship in peace. I would like to add my thanks to our Ambassador to China, who already, after a short sojourn there, has won the highest regard of all classes of Chinese. My right hon. Friend alluded to the fact that we have flown some 35,000 miles. I think we were flown altogether by about 20 different pilots. I know my hon. Friend would like to join me in expressing thanks to

these men, whose cheerfulness and kindness meant a great deal to us on some very arduous flights, and our admiration for the work of these men, who are keeping open the communications of the British Empire and its Allies.

Sir John Wardlaw-Milne: In supporting what my right hon. Friend has said, and thanking our own Members for the work which they have done, may I make a suggestion to the House? Perhaps it is not generally known that to-morrow is the Chinese New Year and that the day is being observed throughout China not only as the beginning of the New Year, but also in celebration of the signing of the Treaty of Extra-territoriality with this country. It is a great day in Chinese history, and I suggest to the House that we might ask the Government to take this opportunity of sending a special message thanking the Chinese for what has been done for our representatives—as I have no doubt the Government have already done—and also expressing good will for the future, on this special day of celebration.

Mr. Bellenger: I wish to put a question to the Leader of the House. A precedent has been created by this visit paid by Members of both Houses of Parliament to China. My right hon. Friend will probably know that suggestions have been made that Members of Parliament should visit other Allied countries and that considerable opposition has been made to such visits. May I ask him, then, whether he will extend the principle which has been applied so successfully in the case of this visit to China to certain other countries? At present, although certain of our colleagues are resident for the time being in some of these countries, there is no opportunity other than that provided by the British Council for Members of Parliament to visit in a friendly way other Allied countries as well as China.

Mr. Astor: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will consider inviting a Chinese delegation to pay a visit to this country? May I also take this opportunity of expressing the thanks of all of us who have been associated with China and Anglo-Chinese relations in the past for the reception given to this Mission, and to say how happy we are to see the good atmosphere which has been created?


May I also say how deeply grateful British communities in China and British firms associated with China will be to the delegation for the successful way in which they have carried out their task?

Captain Poole: While appreciating to the full the work which I am sure this delegation must have done, may I respectfully suggest that much of the good which it has achieved will be lost, unless we can back up everything that has been said there by this delegation with the utmost assistance in arms and supplies to the Chinese people.

Mr. Eden: Perhaps I may say that I will bear in mind the suggestion which has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne), and the other suggestion.

Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: It would have to be done to-day.

Mr. Eden: I will have that in mind. I do not think this would be quite the moment to go into the other questions which have been raised.

Mr. Bellenger: Is not that a rather summary rejection of my proposal?

BILL PRESENTED

HOUSE OF COMMONS DISQUALIFICATION (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL,

"to continue the House of Commons Disqualification (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1941"; presented by Mr. Attlee; supported by Mr. Eden, Sir Archibald Sinclair and the Attorney-General; to be read a Second time upon the next Sitting Day, and to be printed. [Bill 15.]

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The Bill for which I now ask a Second Reading does not involve any fundamental alterations in the food production methods which we have used and which have been, I think, on the whole, very successful. But we all learn by experience, and as time goes on cases are brought to notice in which improvement could take place. The sole purpose of the present Bill is to provide for a number of minor matters where modification seems to be necessary if we are to achieve, with the greatest expedition, that increased food production which is so necessary. I am afraid that this inevitably carries with it the implication of legislation by reference, and I am sorry to have to confess that this Bill is an extreme example of legislation by reference. As I say, that, in the circumstances, is inevitable, and I, therefore, thought it would be convenient to the House if I were to go rapidly through the various Clauses of the Bill and try to explain in simple language what is their effect.
Clause 1 carries out a promise which I made last year that I would ask the House to confirm the emergency action that we took when we increased temporarily the amount of the subsidy for lime from 50 per cent. to 75 per cent. That action, as the House will remember, became necessary last Summer in order to get over the dead season and avoid the risk of lime quarries being shut down and losing their labour. It was effective because farmers bought 1,600,000 tons of lime in the period, compared with 500,000 tons in the previous year. This Clause dates back to 17th May last year. Whether or not it will be necessary to do something like that again this year I cannot say, but even if it should be necessary, it does not necessarily follow that the grant would be at the same increased rate.
The next seven Clauses of the Bill deal with land drainage and are designed to provide us with extended powers which experience has shown to be necessary. The progress made with agricultural drainage


has been fully maintained during the last 12 months. State-aided farm ditching schemes alone already cover 2,000,000 acres, and all kinds of drainage schemes taken together cover approximately 4,000,000 acres. I know and freely confess that there is a great deal still to be done, but I think in considering this problem we should try to get it into proper perspective. Before the war, under the Land Drainage Act, 1930, a start but no more than a promising start was made in dealing with the problems of the main rivers. After centuries of neglect the programme had, inevitably, to be a long-term one, requiring a considerable number of years for its fulfilment. Of course, in the normal way land drainage ought to start at the sea and work up the rivers, the work on the main rivers to be completed before the minor watercourses and farm ditches are tackled. But, owing to the ploughing-up campaign, rendered necessary by the war, an entirely new problem faced us, and in order to get the maximum output of crops, we had to concentrate on tackling the farm ditches and minor watercourses at once, without waiting for the completion of the work on the main rivers.
In addition, a great deal of long-term main river work had to be put off until after the war, because we could not spare the necessary men, materials and machinery. For example, the Great Ouse scheme, costing about £2,500,000, has been approved, but the bulk of that has had to be put off until after the war. Meantime, in large areas dotted here and there in the catchment area of the Great Ouse work has been undertaken to enable us to carry on and increase food production. Approximately, £7,000,000 worth of work on main rivers has had to be postponed until after the war. Therefore, there is a vast amount, as I have said, to be done. If there were only a few hundred thousand acres, as has been suggested in certain quarters where a campaign is being conducted at the present time, no one would be more pleased than the Minister. In fact, however, the amount is represented not by thousands or tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands, but by millions of acres.
Nevertheless, the progress we have made in the last year has been substantial. It has been largely due to the fact that we have been able to obtain a

certain amount of machinery and an increased amount of labour in the shape of Italian prisoners. Machinery is the key. To-day we have working about 400 excavators. In 1940 we had none working. Clearly, it takes time to order and to obtain delivery of excavators. We have a number more on order, and every week that passes sees more excavators at work in the country. In addition, there was the problem of technical staff. Technical staff did not exist in 1940 in anything approaching adequate numbers. We have had to collect it and to a great extent train it. What we are trying to do is to get the maximum increased food production out of such labour, materials, staff and machinery as we have available.
Now to turn to the individual land drainage Clauses of the Bill. Firstly, Clause 2 removes the time limit for grants to drainage authorities for improvement schemes under Section 15 of the Agriculture Act, 1937. It is quite clear that we shall have to continue grants for an indefinite period, and therefore the time limit has been removed. That will enable drainage authorities to plan ahead confidently. Clause 3, by amending the definition of agricultural land for purposes of drainage grants removes a difficulty which has cropped up. For instance, a war agricultural committee wants a golf course to be ploughed up and to be mole-drained in order to enable the work to be of the greatest advantage. Up to now because the course is not agricultural land we have not been able to pay a grant for the drainage. In future, land in respect of which a direction has been given will be deemed to be agricultural land for the purposes of drainage grants. Clause 4 provides for variation of approved schemes and the repayment by the Minister of expenses incurred by drainage authorities for schemes that may subsequently prove abortive, deduction from the landowner's share of the cost of a scheme of any voluntary contributions from other sources and improvements in the method for recovery from landowners of expenses incurred by drainage authorities in the schemes. Clause 5 enables the Minister to recover from the Catchment Board expenses incurred by him on main rivers. Normally, the work on main rivers is the job of the Catchment Board, but in a small number of cases we have, as the Department, undertaken a small part of


the work on a main river as part of a larger scheme of reclamation. Under the existing law the Minister can recover part of the cost from the internal drainage board or from the landowners. But the main river is normally the responsibility of the Catchment Board and in future we shall be able to recover from the Catchment Board for any work we do on a main river.
Clause 6 also concerns reclamation schemes. It may be desirable for us to undertake a major piece of drainage such as the cutting of a new river channel, and this Clause gives the Minister powers to acquire land similar to those possessed by drainage authorities under the Act of 1930. This power is only intended to be available during the war period, and on the Committee stage I propose to move an Amendment to make that quite clear. Clause 7 is designed to remove an anomaly which exists at present and under which statutory drainage authorities are able to pay expenses to their members only when they attend board meetings and not when they attend committee meetings or carry out inspections. Local authorities have the power to pay the expenses of their members when they attend committee meetings or make individual inspections, and in view of the large amount of work being undertaken at present by these statutory authorities and the largely increased number of inspections this Clause is designed to enable expenses to be paid. Clause 8 provides for the assessment of drainage rates to be adjusted to meet any increased value that may arise as a result of a drainage operation. The last Schedule A valuation, on which these rates are based, was in 1935, obviously before a great number of those improvements took place, and this Clause enables us to make new assessments and to take account of the increased value. Owners and occupiers will have the right of appeal to the courts against a drainage board assessment. That covers the drainage Clauses of the Bill.
Clause 9 deals with a matter which has arisen out of our powers to make grants for laying on water to uplands on farms. The Clause enables a landlord, who has laid on a water supply either in conformity with a direction given him by a committee or in accordance with a scheme approved by a committee, to recover the interest on his share of the cost from the

tenant in the shape of increased rent. The tenant is protected against excessive cost as the cost has to be certified as reasonable by the Minister. Clause 10 refers to the improvement of large areas of grazing land by war agricultural committees. It is designed to deal with one or two cases which have occurred in Cumberland and to enable us to recover from farmers who will graze improved common land a contribution towards the cost of the improvement. We have agreed it with the Commons and Footpaths Preservation Society. Clauses 11 to 13 deal with minor amendments to previous enactments.
Now I come to Clause 14 of the Bill, which is rather complicated and technical and which seems to have caused a certain amount of misapprehension, or perhaps I should say apprehension, on the part of some people. It is a logical corollary of the war-time food production campaign and especially of the ploughing-up policy, which, I think, we can claim has proved effective and has been amply justified. The three main Sub-sections of the Clause—(1) (2) and (3)—deal with entirely separate matters, and I hope that the explanation I can give will serve to remove misapprehensions and allay any anxiety. As regards Sub-section (1), the House will be aware that it was customary in agreements before the war for certain land to be scheduled as permanent pasture and for other land to be scheduled as arable. The agreement contained a clause prohibiting a farmer from ploughing up pasture except with the consent of the landlord and established a penalty of so many pounds an acre if he did, in fact, so plough up that pasture. Clearly, when the war came and committees served directions on tenants to plough up pasture, it was inequitable that the tenant, as a result of carrying out a direction issued by a committee for war purposes, should be exposed to having to pay a penalty to his landlord. We have always taken the view within the Department that the tenant was absolved from any such penalty by the mere fact of carrying out a direction served on him by a committee. This point of view was explained to the leading professional institutions as long ago as December, 1939, but ever since then, especially lately, various questions have arisen on the position of landlords and tenants on the occasions of terminations of tenancies, and conflicting legal opinions have been expressed about the


state of the law to-day. Therefore, this Sub-section was designed to clarify the position and make it clear that the state of affairs that the Department has always considered to exist is, in fact, the law.
At first glance, it perhaps may be thought that this Clause favours the tenant unduly and that nothing is being done for the landlord. This, however, is not the case. The tenant's claim for tenant right obviously arises on every occasion during the war when there is a change of tenancy or when a tenancy terminates, and therefore the position has to be settled there and then. The position of the landlord does not arise until the end of the war. Claims for loss suffered by a landlord as a result of directions are covered by an agreement made and published in December, 1939, under which the Minister was authorised by His Majesty's Government to announce that where grassland was ploughed up landowners would be entitled to lodge claims for compensation at the end of the war if the annual value of the land, or the farm of which it formed part, had been diminished as a result of being ploughed up. The compensation will be based on the cost of restoring the land, that is, re-seeding, or alternatively a sum calculated with reference to the amount by which the annual value of the land is diminished. The landlord's position has been defined, covered and safeguarded by the pledge given by the Government three years ago, and it is not in any way changed by this Clause of the Bill. Therefore, we come to the conclusion that while it is necessary to deal with the position of the tenant, it is unnecessary to deal any further with the position of the landlord.
Sub-section (2) has been framed to deal with quite a separate point. The county war agricultural executive committees have been faced in a number of cases with difficulty regarding the position when they ordered certain crops to be grown in the last year of a tenancy, because neither under the agreement nor the custom could the tenant, on quitting, claim to be paid for the growing crops, tillages or manuring on the particular areas on which the Committee had served a direction during the war. For instance, a tenancy agreement might, and very commonly did, contain a Clause saying that a particular acreage was to be bare fallowed in the

last year of the tenancy, and in present conditions, the Committee might well decide that we could not afford the loss of the crops so involved and that, despite the agreement, a particular area must be cropped. A tenant whose tenancy was finishing next Lady Day and who had been ordered to plant a field with wheat last September or October, would find that he was not entitled to any compensation for planting the wheat or for any manure he might have used, and that, indeed, he might be subject to a penalty for not having left the land bare fallowed. Obviously, this was inequitable, and the Clause puts it right. Again, no additional charge will be imposed on the landlord because the incoming tenant in practice pays the outgoing tenant's valuation, and the landlord will have to pay only in the case where he himself is taking over the land and is going to farm it himself, in which case he will be in the position of the incoming tenant.
Sub-section (3) deals with the case of the tenant who, following on a direction from the war agricultural executive committee, clears land of bushes, removes boulders or brings derelict land under cultivation. This Sub-section provides that the tenant, at the end of the tenancy, will be able to claim compensation for any increased annual value of the farm as a result of the work he has done. Of course, if the tenant, after reclamation, by growing two or more white crops, has reduced materially the fertility of the land, this will be taken into account by the valuers in assessing the compensation and may be, indeed, regarded as a counter claim by the landlord. This will be taken into account by the valuers when they consider whether or not any compensation is due. It is, perhaps, important to note that nothing in this Clause affects the existing right of a landlord to counterclaim from a tenant on quitting a sum in respect of any default on the part of the tenant as regards his obligation to farm the land in a proper and husbandlike manner and to keep the hedges and ditches in good order. This applies whether the land is arable or pasture. As I have said, I am aware, from representations that have reached me, that this Clause has caused a certain amount of misapprehension, or perhaps indeed apprehension, on the part of landowners, and it has been represented to me that,


while everything is being done to assist the tenant, there is nothing in it for the landlord.

Mr. James Griffiths: That is a change.

Mr. Hudson: It is, I think, true to say, in general, as I think every impartial person is bound to admit, that as a result of the war and the steps that we have had to take to increase food production, the farmers have had the advantage of guaranteed markets and guaranteed prices and the farm workers have had the advantage of enhanced wages, but that the landowner has been faced with very largely increased costs for the maintenance of his estate, that the wages of his estate workers have increased, costs of building materials have increased, and there have been difficulties in maintaining his estate because of the calling-up of many of his workers, and that all these costs have not been offset in any way by any appreciable increase in rent. He is the one of the three partners whose position has materially worsened, compared with the other two, as a result of the war. I am sure the House will appreciate the difficulties and will appreciate also that, in spite of them, the landowners are fully playing their part in the war effort. Therefore, I think it is important that I should reassure them, if I possibly can, that this Clause does not jeopardise the landowners' position in any possible way, or in any way detract from the pledge that was given and incorporated in the agreement of December, 1939, regarding any possible claims for compensation at the end of the war.
Clause 15 provides for the rounding-off of powers conferred by Section 9 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1941. It will be remembered that under that Section I have power to acquire land compulsorily, where the Committees have taken possession of it on the ground of bad husbandry, with a view to eventual resale in order to recover the cost of the expenditure and betterment. That power applies only to agricultural land and it does not enable me to buy the remainder of a farm or an estate, such as woodlands or spinneys. This provision gives me power to acquire the remainder of any particular farm or estate, but only by agreement. There is no question of the owner being compelled to sell if he does not want to do so.
Clause 16 deals with the control of artificial insemination. The announcement earlier in the year by the Agricultural Improvement Council of the setting-up of a Supervisory Committee to supervise field trials in artificial insemination at two experimental stations at Reading and Cambridge evoked a lively, but, I am afraid, premature, interest and stimulated a number of projects for the commercial development of this process. The object of these trials at Reading and Cambridge is to find out whether artificial insemination on a field scale in this country is practicable and economic. I am quite well aware that in Russia, for example, artificial insemination is being practised on a considerable scale, but I think hon. Members will agree that farming conditions in Russia are very different from those obtaining here. It is clear, or at least very probable, that artificial insemination holds great possibilities for good as far as livestock improvement in this country is concerned, but I think it is also clear that it contains great possibilities of evil if it gets into the hands of people who are going to exploit it purely commercially. Therefore, some system of control is necessary. What the exact system will be I cannot yet say, but this clause is merely an enabling Clause which will enable me, after taking the best advice I can get, to make such regulations as seem desirable for controlling the sale and importation of semen of the particular animals mentioned in the clause. It will be noticed that the Regulations which I eventually make will be subject to a negative Resolution by both Houses. Clause 17 remedies the historical anomaly by which His Majesty's Customs Inspectors have to collect the returns of corn in markets in the interior of the country. The business of receiving returns and prescribing markets is transferred by the Clause to the Ministry of Agriculture. Clauses 18 to 20 apply the provisions of the Bill to Scotland. I am sorry if I have been long in explaining this rather lengthy series of provisions, but I thought it better to give a full explanation, and I hope the House will agree that it is a useful and necessary Measure.

Colonel Sir George Courthope: There is only one Clause in the Bill to which I wish to refer. I have no objection whatever to raise to any of the other Clauses, most of which are desirable and some essential for the progress of the very


great work which my right hon. Friend and his Department are doing in increasing the food supply of the country. Clause 14 deals with the relationship between landlord and tenant, and, as my right hon. Friend told the House himself, ploughing-up orders at the very beginning quite properly interfered with the obligations and liabilities of tenants under their agreements and under what is known as the custom of the country. I am quite certain he fully believes that there is no element of injustice in Sub-section (1), which gives a statutory right to the exemption which we have assumed the tenant had, but it is not sufficient that he should be satisfied. If it is to work smoothly, the people who are going to be affected at the other end must be satisfied too. In September, 1939, when these ploughing orders were first put into effect, the then Minister, Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith, wrote an official letter to county war agricultural executive committees throughout the country, copies of which were officially sent to bodies like the National Farmers' Union and the Landlords' Association. It was known as "The Gentlemen's Agreement." It gives an undertaking that where an owner of land after the war period wished his grassland, which had been compulsorily ploughed up, to be restored, he might claim that it should be restored to its former condition or, alternatively, at his option, claim compensation in cash for loss of annual value.
In December of that year a White Paper, which is commonly known as 1510, was issued which purported to embody that agreement. But it had this difference. It took the option as to whether land should be restored to its original condition or cash repaid for loss of annual value out of the hands of the owners and put it into the hands of the Minister. I do not want to exaggerate the importance of that, but it is felt in some quarters that it is not quite playing the game. It is not the way that a gentlemen's agreement should be put upon paper. Now the Minister has decided that, in order to make quite certain that he and his committees are not acting ultra vires, he must give statutory authority to the ploughing-up orders and their consequences. I am going to ask him to consider very carefully before the Committee stage whether,

while he is embodying one part of the business on the Statute book, he cannot also get the other part of the gentlemen's agreement in Clause 14 as well. It would remove a great deal of feeling, which may or may not be justified, that there is an element of injustice in these proposals, and it is to everyone's advantage that a thing of this kind should work smoothly. It will only work smoothly if the owners of land as well as others think they are getting a fair deal.
Sub-section (3) gives the tenant the right to compensation for increase of annual value owing to the clearing of scrub land, brush or boulders carried out under the orders of the county war agricultural executive committee. I am afraid of that, not in the least from a landlord's point of view, but because you can do no greater disservice to farming than pile up incoming tenants with excessive incoming valuation. One of the great evils after the last war, one of the things that made farming so difficult, was the fact that there were in many cases excessive incoming valuations, which absorbed a great part of the working capital which the incoming tenant so badly needed if he was to farm properly. I ask my right hon. Friend to consider very carefully whether this Sub-section, and to a minor extent Sub-section (2), do not run the risk of piling up to an excessive degree the incoming valuation which the tenant may have to pay. If they do, they will definitely militate against the very remarkable success which he has achieved and which we all wish he should carry on.

Mr. Lambert: There are parts of the Bill which I like and parts as to which I want to make certain inquiries. I am connected with an agricultural college in Devonshire where we have trained some 800 land girls, and I want to tell my right hon. Friend that he must not rely on them for spreading lime. It is a dusty, dirty job, and anyone who has seen the clothes of a man after doing it will know that a girl would want a liberal supply of water and a great many cosmetics to restore her complexion. I hope therefore my right hon. Friend will see to it that, if his policy is to be successful, the Minister of Labour will look with a kindly eye on our key men. I hope he will, because the Minister of Labour told me the other day that when I was first elected to this House he was


residing at a farm seven or eight miles from my home in Devonshire. This is a wonderful country, where a man, without any adventitious circumstances, by his grip and ability, reinforced by an intake of Devonshire air, can rise to the high position which he now occupies and in which we all wish him well in his work. I should also like to ask my right hon. Friend whether there is any likelihood of drainage, not river beds or swamps but on ordinary agricultural land which really requires drainage and would be capable of producing crops almost at once. We have cases in Devonshire where fields, if they could be drained—the local labour is not there—would be capable of being ploughed up and producing crops and adding to present food production. I am not sure that that would not be wiser than concentrating on river beds and the like, because they cannot come into cultivation for some little while.
There is another point that I want to raise, on Clause 10. There are considerable areas of common land in my constituency, quite good land, which has been ploughed up but never before within the memory of man. I take two examples. The first was simply scrub, gorse and bracken. It was ploughed and quite good crops have been taken from it. I want to know what is to happen to that land after the war. I take a moor in my constituency near a small town. It has 410 acres, of which 340 has been cropped, which shows that it is good land. There is another which has only grown bracken for generations. That has 151 acres, of which 136 are cultivated. What is to happen to that? Are you going to claim compensation for improvement?

Mr. Hudson: The Bill will not affect them. It applies purely to a couple of hills in Cumberland.

Mr. Lambert: The Bill as it stands certanly does apply to them. It says the works and improvements executed on land subject to common rights may be recovered from the persons who will benefit. Surely, that covers the case to which I am referring, and if so, perhaps my right hon. Friend will remedy it. What I wish to ask my right hon. Friend is whether the Ministry have got a more constructive policy which would bring about the permanent cultivation of these areas? There are some 1,500 or 2,000 acres in

my constituency which could be so rendered productive. It would be pitiable for them again to go back into scrub and gorse. I ask the Minister whether he has any ideas as to how to continue this valuable land back in food production. I suggest that it could be made into smallholdings, and that in the case of commons close to small towns, it would be an admirable project to let the local inhabitants have smallholdings instead of merely grazing two or three ponies. I hope my right hon. Friend will consider this matter. I would like to be able to assure our people in Devonshire that all their good work has not gone for nothing. A good deal of knowledge and experience concerning the fertility of land has now been gained. I went over one farm where lime had had no effect, but they drilled phosphates with the oats, and on that land there was a good crop, whereas on the land which had not been so manured there was a very poor crop. When the matter was gone into, those concerned came to the conclusion that, as the land had been grazed for many years, the animals had taken the phosphates to form their bones, and that, therefore, phosphates were required to produce corn.
With regard to the compensation which my right hon. Friend is going to claim, the amount is very limited, but I think he will also claim something under the drainage schemes. I want to ask him over what period the valuation is to be taken. We have a vivid recollection of what happened to agriculture in the years 1918 to 1921. If this valuation is taken at the end of the war, the value will be very different from what it may be later on. I would like my right hon. Friend to devote his attention to that matter and to tell us at what period he proposes to take the valuation.
With regard to artificial insemination, if this is to be of value it will be in counties where there are small herds. Devonshire is a county of small herds. A man may keep four, five or six cows; he is unable to keep a bull, and has to drive to a farmer who does keep one. Such a bull is very likely to be contaminated with disease. There have been in Devonshire outbreaks of sterility and abortion which have had a very damaging effect on the farmer's purse and on milk production. The Devon War Agricultural


Committee, a very progressive body, wished to make an experiment, not of a commercial nature, in this matter, and they put forward a scheme. The Seale-Hayne Agricultural College, of which I have the honour to be chairman, would supervise the experiment. It was a very carefully worked out scheme and was put to my right hon. Friend, but was turned down. They came to me and asked me about it, and I said: "What was the cost of your scheme?" When they said it would not cost more than £2,000, I groaned and said that such an amount to the Ministry of Agriculture was like an old lady's tip to a porter and that if they had put in for £20,000 the Ministry of Agriculture would have thought that there was something in it. I do no know the reason why the scheme was negatived, because artificial insemination would be of value in Devonshire, which is a county of small herds. The Ministry of Agriculture, like other Ministries, think that they are the sole fountain of wisdom, but I assure my right hon. Friend that there are some capable people in Devonshire and that they do know their own business. I am sorry that he did not allow us to go on with our experiment.
A good deal of this Bill will be carried out by the county war agricultural committees. That shows the advantage of de-centralisation. Those committees, which have been such a success, were the creation of the late Minister of Agriculture, Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith, who is now in a different situation. I would assure him, if my voice could reach, that we agriculturists remember his services to this great industry with grateful recognition. I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to give satisfactory answers to my questions. In the meanwhile, I wish his Bill every success.

Mr. Wilfrid Roberts: A good many of the questions I would like to raise about agriculture do not come under this Bill. I will not, therefore, raise them but will try to follow the Minister's example and keep to the Bill itself. I would like to make a comment on the lime subsidy. In my experience in our part of the country it is not so much a question of price which prevents the greater use of lime, but a question of shortage of labour, for making the lime, for distributing it and for

putting it on the land. This raises the general question of labour, which I do not think would be in Order. So many of the farmer's problems are labour problems. This is true to a large extent with regard to drainage. We welcome the alterations in this Bill which affect that problem. There is a great deal of field drainage, in the North of England especially, which could be done if labour and machinery were available. It does not depend often upon the clearing of the rivers, because in many districts they are clear enough. What is needed is actual drainage on the fields, tile drainage in particular. Could the Minister give us some information on the possibility of mechanising tile drainage? There appear to be one or two machines available now, and if they are practicable and the quality of their work is good, it would be possible to bring an enormous amount of land into arable cultivation in the North of England, land which cannot be drained because of the shortage of manual labour.
My constituents will welcome Clause 10, which the Minister says is especially for the benefit of Cumberland, but I should be grateful if he would tell me what his intentions are with regard to this Clause. There is room for great improvement in some of these common moorlands in Cumberland, but I do not understand why the problems there are specially different from the problems of the common lands in the West of England and other parts of the country. There have been ambitious schemes to deal with commons in various parts of England, as, for instance, the New Forest scheme. Why was not this Bill necessary for some of them, and why is it necessary for the particular conditions in Cumberland?
I would like to say a word about artificial insemination. I agree that this is a thing which has to be carefully controlled and that it must not be exploited commercially, because there are dangers in it. It appears to me, however, that the Minister and his Department are excessively cautious about it. I should be interested to hear why the scheme to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) referred was turned down. It is true that the conditions in Russia are different from those in this country, but my information is that in Denmark, where the conditions are very similar, a great


deal of work on artificial insemination has been done. There were before the war 85 centres in Denmark, covering probably hundreds of thousands of cattle. It cannot be said that Danish farming conditions are very different from those in England. In fact, the Danes seem to have gone ahead very briskly, and their methods of breeding and of dissemination of scientific knowledge have always been in some ways ahead of our own. I should have thought that by now, with the many millions of animals in the world which have been bred by these artificial methods, the scientific side of the matter had been thoroughly investigated and that the problem in this country was how to organise it in such a way as to suit our agricultural conditions. The main basis is agreed by the scientists concerned, and I believe that the system has immense possibilities for this country. In any case it is going on in other countries, and we should not be left behind.
The licensing of bulls has not had very spectacular results. It has not resulted in a very rapid improvement in the standard of livestock in this country. We have found out during the war that the yields of many milk cows, to take one example, in this country are much lower than they should be. Breeding is only one way of improving that state of affairs. No doubt management is equally important, but undoubtedly there is an immense number of cows used for milk production which have not been specialy bred for milk production of which the yield is poor, and there are many herds whose constitution is far from what it should be. Artificial insemination would be valuable for small farmers, because there are very few of them who can afford the best bulls. The dairying industry is an industry of small farmers. The objections to this method are partly that it is against nature. The practice, of breeding, however, and most farm processes are alterations of natural processes or are a control of them. The fact that this is rather a new departure does not suggest to me that it is any more against nature than the breeding of cows with high milk records in the normal way.
Then there is the objection which comes from pedigree breeders. I notice that many breeding societies are suspicious of the whole process. One can naturally understand that those who attach some importance to their sales of pedigree bulls may look askance at this method, but

that is not an objection which ought to weigh very strongly with the Ministry of Agriculture. If the scheme is worked well, I am sure that it will benefit the pedigree breeding societies.

Mr. Snadden: How will it benefit the cattle breeder?

Mr. Roberts: There is an enormous number of cattle in this country which are non-pedigree and mongrels. Our pedigree cattle are very good, but there are a great many mongrels of a poor type which we could well replace with a much better class of cattle. If we get a higher standard of livestock in this country, that will benefit the pedigree breeders quite quickly. I look forward after the war to a steady grading-up of livestock, and I think that there is a great future for pedigree breeders. If more pedigree stock were kept, the pedigree breeder would sell more female animals, if not bulls. He would have an outlet there. If the breed societies take a rather short view, I am afraid they may easily lose a big opportunity. There will be a good demand from the Continent for good livestock, and this is one way in which this country can possibly develop an export trade. Let me put it this way, if they stick their toes in they may easily lose a market to other countries which are more progressive. There are dangers in these proposals, but as I see it they are mostly scientific dangers, and therefore I agree that the whole thing should be carefully controlled. At the same time there is a demand for it. I understand that the first scheme was started only eight weeks ago and that already 45 farmers are participating in it. Finally, I would say that I hope the Ministry of Agriculture will not be too cautious, too conservative, in administering this Clause of the Bill.

Sir Ernest Shepperson: So far as the principles of this Bill are' concerned, I wish to support it in its entirety. I think the Minister of Agriculture has been the outstanding success in our war effort in the matter of food production, and we support him in any measures he may take to continue to increase the productivity of our land. But in saying that I would raise the query whether there is in this Bill equity as between the farmer and the landlord. It is said that there are three partners in the great industry


of agriculture—the agricultural landlord, the fanner and the agricultural worker. It is always easy to get sympathy and generous treatment for the agricultural worker, because everybody wants him to have a fair wage and a decent standard of living. It is not quite so easy to get sympathy and generous treatment for the farmer. In the past the farmer has not been treated too generously. Now that we are in a war period the country is expressing gratitude for the efforts of farmers, and we only hope that that gratitude will continue after the war. But for the agriculural landlord it is very difficult, almost impossible, to get any sympathy even to-day. Agricultural landlords, like all landlords, are subjected to criticism, they are held responsible for all sorts of evils, they are regarded almost as the villains of the piece. I do not agree with that, and I shall run the risk of unpopularity by supporting the landlord and putting forward his case under this Bill.
I feel that I am justified in asking for some sympathy for the agricultural landlord. The Minister has already explained that relationships between the agricultural landlord and the farmer are governed by an agreement. Under that agreement the farmer undertakes not to do this, that and the other, but agrees also to do certain other things. The landlord also has his obligations under that agreement. The farmer has undertaken not to plough up grass land and if he does he subjects himself to a penalty. He has agreed to cleanse out the ditches, to do the hedges and, in short, to maintain the fertility of the farm in the same condition when he leaves it as it was when he took it. If the tenant does anything which improves the value of the land, then at the end of the time the law requires the landlord to pay the tenant for those improvements. The powers of the Minister under the Defence Regulations and under this Bill, acting through the county war agricultural committees, to a considerable extent revoke the agreement between landlord and tenant. Under Clause 4 of the Bill, as I read it, if the county war agricultural committee consider that agricultural land is capable of improvement by the execution of drainage works they may request a Catchment Board to prepare and execute a scheme for the drainage of the land and recover the net cost from the landlord. This

may be done notwithstanding that the landlord has had no notification that the scheme was being prepared or executed and no opportunity of expressing his views. One agrees that it is right and proper that these drainage operations should be undertaken if they improve the productivity of the land in time of war, and my objection is that the landlord should be the one left to pay for that work. It is probably within the agreement made between the landlord and the tenant that the tenant shall keep all watercourses properly cleaned out, and if in the past he has failed to discharge that duty, it does not seem to be just to put the liability of paying for the work on to the landlord, to make him pay for the default of his tenant in the past and leave him with no opportunity to recover the outlay at the termination of the tenancy.
Clause 14 says that all grassland ploughed up under the orders of a war agricultural committee shall henceforth be deemed to be arable land and to have been arable land at all material times. As I understand it, the result will be that the tenant will plough up his grassland under the orders of a war agricultural committee and will be relieved from any liability to compensate the landlord for having broken his undertaking under the agreement not to plough up grassland. Under the agreement the tenant may have been subject to a penalty of £2 to £5 per acre, but that is wiped out. The tenant ploughs up the grassland, he cashes in on the stored-up fertility of that grassland, which is the landlord's, cashes in on the sales of the crops raised on that land, yet pays nothing to the landlord. Further, for ploughing up the land the tenant will get the subsidy of £2 per acre given by the State. The landlord gets nothing. Worse than that, the tenant, having used up the fertility of the grassland with two, three or four crops, may decide after the war to put that ploughed-up grassland back to grass again. If he does so then because, under the Bill, that ploughed-up grassland is to be considered at all material times as arable land, the tenant will be able to claim from the landlord at a valuation the cost of re-seeding that land. I submit on this that I have some justification for saying that in this Bill there is not equitable treatment for the landlord and the tenant. It is not in the least a question as between the landlord


and the State; the landlord is willing to do whatever he can in this emergency; but it is a question between the landlord and the tenant.
I was pleased to hear the Minister say that he would see that landlords' interests were protected. I think the time has arrived when we should give some recognition to landlords for the work they have done in the past, for the help they have given to agriculture. They should have some sympathy from this House. In the past we have had "grouses" from agricultural labourers because their wages were not high enough, we have had innumerable "grouses" from farmers that the prices they were getting were not enough, but I do not think we have ever had a "grouse" from the agricultural landlord, and I would appeal to the Minister not to give the agricultural landlord any opportunity for a "grouse" under this Bill.

Mr. Snadden: I dare say that I shall be the only Scottish Member to raise his voice in this Debate, but that does not mean that the points I shall put are entirely Scottish points. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Sir E. Shepperson) will forgive me if I do not follow him in the details of Clause 14. This Clause does not affect us in Scotland very greatly, because we are in the happy position of not having farmed on the permanent grass system which has been in operation South of the Border. But in passing I should like to make one point on Clause 14. The Minister has, I think, done his best to assure us that the landlord will be protected, but the whole point, it seems to me, is whether or not when the valuation is made the land has or has not diminished in value. If the land has diminished in value, the landlord will be protected, but after the war we may find a position where agricultural land has increased in value, in which case there will be no compensation whatever for the landlord. I do not quite feel myself that we have got an assurance on that point, but, as I say, I do not wish to go into Clause 14 in detail.
I would like to make two preliminary points on this Bill. They may seem rather trivial, but they are very important to us in Scotland. This is the fourth Agricultural (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill which has been introduced into this

House since 1940. I am quite certain that, though they certainly contained many useful provisions, the time is now ripe when there should be an Act consolidating the Miscellaneous Provisions Statutes or possibly an Act solely applicable to Scotland combining these Statutes with those of the Land Drainage (Scotland) Act, 1941. Perhaps I have not been in the House long enough to understand the somewhat puzzling technique of cross-reference and cross-amendment. I do not know. I do know that this business of cross-reference and cross-amendment does place Members of Parliament and agriculturists in a position of very great difficulty, because we really do not know what the true and final state of the law really is. As things stand to-day, I do not think it can be said that they are either clear or satisfactory. I suggest to the Under-Secretary for Scotland, who will probably reply to me, that something might be done to help the hard working secretaries of our agricultural executive committees who are constantly turning to Acts of Parliament and have to go through them at great labour to find out what the provision of the law is.
The other preliminary point I wish to put to the Under-Secretary for Scotland is that I find this is a United Kingdom Bill, but Clauses 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 11 and 17 have, so far as I can see, no application whatever in Scotland. I want to put this suggestion to the Under-Secretary: Having had previous experience in another post going round these county committees for whom I have a great admiration, in order to help secretaries we should insert in the Bill, possibly in Clause 18, words which would convey that these Clauses do not have any application in Scotland. It would save a great deal of time. I would like to say a word on Clause 9. This Clause provides that where the landlord executes work for the supply of water on an agricultural holding the tenant will be liable for interest on the net cost of the work. I think everyone will agree, particularly the hon. Member who has just spoken, that such a provision is both useful and equitable. This is a new principle introduced, whereby interest can be charged because of money expended by the landlord. I suggest that the principle embodied in this Clause should be extended as a matter of general policy. Why should it not, for example, apply


to other improvements of equal and perhaps greater importance to our food production campaign? I refer, of course, to improvements carried out either under the direction of the county executive committee or with the approval of the county executive committee.
This Clause applies only to water supplies. But consider the case, and several such cases are known to me, where a county executive committee may compel a landlord to spend, say, £1,000 on the reconstruction of farm buildings in order to raise the holding to the standard required of us to-day. That is a very considerable sum of money for a landlord to be asked to find, and he may have very great difficulty in raising it. The point I wish to put is that the principle embodied in Clause 9 should be applied wherever capital is expended by the landlord on the orders of a county executive committee or with the approval of the county executive committee, always provided that the landlord is doing something more than is incumbent upon him under his lease or contract. In Scotland we have an excellent organisation to which such matters could be taken. The Scottish Land Court can decide such questions, and I am sure reasonable decisions would be reached. At the moment the position is far from satisfactory. What really happens is that when the rental of that farm was assessed the dilapidated state of the farm buildings would be taken into account in order to arrive at the rental value. The county executive committee come along and order a landlord to spend a large sum of money. The only possible way the landlord can have the rent revised is by giving notice to quit at the first date when a termination of tenancy is possible under the lease. In Scotland we have long leases, and that date may therefore be a long way off, but in any case such an incentive to a landlord to give notice to quite is wholly undesirable and should not be encouraged. For that reason I would ask the Minister—I think this applies to both countries—whether they would consider the extension of the principle under Clause 9 to cover the kind of case I have touched upon.
There is one small point I would put to the Under-Secretary for Scotland. I hope he will forgive me being a little technical. I think it is important from the point of view of detailed Scottish legislation.

Under Clause 9 I find that action is contemplated by a landlord either in pursuance of a direction given by a county executive committee or a scheme approved by a county executive committee for the special purpose of Section 15 of the 1940 Act. I may be wrong, but I find on looking into the Section referred to that it has no application in Scotland. It would seem to follow that this can only apply in Scotland when a direction has been served. I think, having a fairly good memory—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that Section 15 of that particular Act had to do with mole drainage. I think this was later added to by Section 3 of the 1941 Act, which came in to cover water supplies. That had no effect in Scotland. The corresponding Scottish extension was a different Section altogether. It was Section 12 (4) of the 1941 Act. It would appear to me then that some clarification is called for in regard to this Clause's application to Scotland. I think that it is no doubt the intention of the Secretary of State for Scotland to bring in a similar Measure for Scotland at the same time and in the same way as in England. As this Clause stands, that purpose does not seem to me to be fulfilled.
I wish to draw the attention of the Under-Secretary to a point under Clause 13. It is quite simple but quite important. Clause 13 deals with the extension of the war emergency lease provisions. I will not go into detail on that, because it is rather a curious position. It refers to the 364 days lease in regard to grass park tenancies. That is a business all by itself, but in this Bill reference is made in this Clause to Section 26 of the 1940 Act. That Section excluded from the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923, the right of compensation for disturbance in the case of certain lands These lands were covered in this Clause in regard to grass parks, and in this particular Section a condition was laid down that the tenant should sow permanent grass seeds with the waygoing crop, Section 26 (1, a) of the 1940 Act was no doubt inserted in the interests of the landlord. I wish to put the point to the Under-Secretary that in practice this particular condition has been found by the county, executive committees to be a definite obstruction to the letting of grass parks. The reason is that no tenant will lease a grass park, plough it up and sow it down on waygoing in order to leave the hay to the landlord. I would not do it


myself, and you will not get many Scottish tenants to do it. In the case of very poor land permission may be given to re-seed after one or perhaps two crops to the ultimate benefit of the land. No tenant will do this properly unless he is to get a reasonable course of cropping and the benefit of the grass seeds sown out. I would suggest that something should be done here. I am not a lawyer, and I do not know exactly what is required unless it be that the word "waygoing" should be left out of the Clause to which I have referred. If you do that, you will, I think, in Scotland facilitate the smooth letting of grass parks at a time when they are badly needed.
I wish to speak about artificial insemination, a point which my hon. Friend over there raised. We in Scotland are particularly interested in this process or practice, and it is an extraordinarily interesting and important practice from the point of view of the livestock industry. What does the Clause do? It gives power to the Minister to make regulations for the control of the practice, for the licensing of distribution of semen and for control by licence of imports and exports of this material. I believe—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that the Minister has the power to enter into premises where licences have been granted. There is no doubt at all that revolutionary and far-reaching possibilities are opened up by this process. It would be quite wrong to assume that it is a new process. It has been going on for a century. I have used it locally in my own particular herd at home. But there is acute division of opinion throughout the whole country as to whether artificial insemination is necessary either economically or genetically. On the one hand, our scientists are urging the extension of this practice. They say it will avoid sterility. There is a certain amount of truth in that, because of the greater accuracy of the human hand as against nature's method. They also say that contagious abortion will be lessened, that it would help the small farmer who cannot afford first-rate sires, and—this is an important point, which was made by the hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. Roberts)—they say that in the post-war period the devastated countries will not be able to afford the price we would demand here for our

pedigree stock, and that therefore we should export semen instead.
On the other hand, only one of our major Breed Societies in Great Britain—and this is without doubt the greatest livestock breeding country in the world—only one, and that particular society has very good reason for approving of it, as it is an importing society, desires an extension of the practice. Many competent practical authorities, including probably the best of our breeders—and some of the most expert of our breeders in the North—are keenly apprehensive lest disastrous results should ensue to our pedigree herds and flocks. We have to remember that we cannot have pedigree animals without a pedigree herd, and we must be careful that we do not kill the goose that lays the golden, eggs. The source of supply is what we need to watch, not only in cattle, but in sheep.
I have exported animals to almost all the countries of the world who have in the past bought from us, including Soviet Russia, and I claim to know a little about this subject. I share the fears of the practical man on this question, but I do not take up an attitude of uncompromising resistance. I fear that if artificial insemination is generally introduced it will drastically reduce our bull population, as it will tend to concentrate the demand for semen at the top. If one wants artificially to inseminate a herd and you wish to get this material, one would not go to the man at the bottom, or even in the middle, but to the man at the top. The consequence will be that if the practice becomes universal, the demand will concentrate into the hands of a few, and the backbone of our pedigree herds, the smaller men who sell their bulls throughout the country to-day will be left standing. The consequence would be that there would be less outlet for bulls not suitable for pedigree herds. We should probably find our bull population of this country reduced to a very small number of really first-class animals. There is also the danger of excessive in-breeding leading to all-round deterioration.
If you have a champion bull, it does not necessarily follow in the slightest degree that he will throw the same calves every year. You get first-class calves this year, but next year when you look for them they are not there; if they were the business would be simple. The second


year you may experience a great falling off, which is the fascinating part of the business. If artificial insemination becomes universal with the exportation of large masses of material you may succeed in levelling down instead of up, because the purchasers may hit off one of those cycles of inferior stock getting. Putting aside all those arguments, one of the greatest problems of all will be the extreme difficulty experienced in safeguarding the authenticity and reliability of pedigrees. I will sum up this matter by saying that I feel that if this practice becomes universal or is extended it may well undermine our great pure bred structure in this country. Reference has been made to Denmark, and although I cannot speak about Denmark, I am not convinced. As regards Russia, there is no comparison there at all. What happened in Russia was that they wanted results quickly, and over vast distances. There was no danger of deterioration there because there was nothing to deteriorate. They wanted calves quickly, thousands of them, and no doubt it was a correct policy. You cannot compare Russia with this country.
Much as I dislike this uncalled-for interference with the normal functioning of nature, I believe that artificial insemination will in the long run, whether we like it or not, force itself upon us. I am sure that other countries will exploit it, and we must not be ostriches and put our heads in the sand. I do not think that is wise to adopt a short-sighted policy of uncompromising resistance. We have to take a broad view. Having recognised that, what is the problem? That we should devise as completely foolproof a scheme as possible. I would, therefore, ask the Minister to see that the strictest possible control is exercised not only at the location from which the material comes, the location of the sire but, just as important, at the location where fertilisation of the female stock takes place. If you control it at one end and not the other, the scheme will run amok. The Clauses in the Bill give the Minister sufficient power, and I have no criticism on that point, but I suggest that no matter what the report may be of the Committee appointed by the Agricultural Improvements Council—and I am a little suspicious of them—before we jump into

this business, an official centre should be set up in Scotland where we can collect experience and data vital to this practice. For example, we do not know what the effect will be on future generations of animals where artificial insemination has been used. We might find something terrific happen with animals produced by this process. For these reasons I would ask the Scottish Minister to "gang warily" as we say in Scotland. We want, above all, to preserve the quality of our pedigree herds, and I think the Minister will appreciate that I am out to protect our great pure bred structure, built up over so many years with so much labour and with so much skill.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Chapman): I trust it will be acceptable to the House that I should intervene briefly at this stage to reply to the points put forward so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for West Perth (Mr. Snadden). I am under the difficulty that I have undertaken to be brief, and further that one desires to avoid duplication. Therefore, if I do not reply in detail to points which I know will be covered in the winding-up speech of my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, I trust that my hon. Friend will not think that I am being discourteous. I am trying to deal as far as I can with the other points he has raised.
Many hon. Members will have sympathy with my hon. Friend in his plaint about legislation by reference. It is very difficult to know how this is to be got over, particularly in war-time. I quite understand agricultural committees having their problems in this matter, but I also say that the Department of Agriculture is always available to assist them, and has been assisting them, immediately it is asked. As to the feasibility of consolidating a whole series of Acts, that is a matter rather out with my province. I suggest to my hon. Friend that perhaps, under war-time conditions, with a necessary series of adjustments from year to year, it is very difficult to decide exactly where the point of finality is to come; but these points will be duly noted and studied. As to the other points about the Clauses in the Bill, Clauses 1, 6, 9 and 12 to 16 inclusive apply to Scotland as well as to England and Wales, while 18, 19 and 20 apply to Scotland alone. The suggestion made by my hon. Friend that


an indication of which Clauses apply to Scotland alone, or affect Scotland as well, should appear in the Bill, will be brought to the notice of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I do not know what the technicalities of the position are.
Briefly in regard to Clause 9, under Section 15 of the Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1940, as amended by Section 3 of the Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1941, the Department of Agriculture is enabled to give grants up to the rate of 50 per cent. of the cost of introducing water to agricultural land. Clause 9 of the Bill enables the landlord who has taken advantage of the scheme to recover the interest on the net cost to him of such work from agricultural tenants who have received benefit. The application of the principle of Clause 9 to other improvements as suggested by my hon. Friend where they are not covered in some other way raises a question of policy which, he will appreciate, one cannot deal with offhand. It is rather a big thing, and I will be grateful if he will leave it so that we can study the matter and see whether anything can be done about it. I am holding out no promise, he understands, but we will consider his observations on this particular theme. I would point out that the other types of improvement, such as field drainage, may be covered in other directions, but they are permanent improvements which normally a tenant is not under any obligation to carry out. They are improvements carried out by the landlord for his benefit to facilitate proper cultivation. As to the more costly improvements to which my hon. Friend has alluded, such as the provision of additional buildings, I cannot offhand call to mind a case of that nature.

Mr. Snadden: The point I had in mind was in connection with dairy farms. It seems hard on the landlord to be asked to do up his farm buildings, possibly at a cost of £1,000, and then to say that he cannot charge interest on the money expended. He cannot do anything in the matter, until he gives notice to quit to the tenant. Where that occurs under any order of a county committee, the Government might consider allowing interest on the margin expended over and above the maintenance of rental. I hope I make the point clear.

Mr. Chapman: I get my hon. Friend's point, but I was dealing with the matter

in a more general way. He is aware that no one is keener than myself about the matter of dairy farms and about getting our milk supplies up, but there is a certain difficulty here, which he will realise. I appreciate his desire and I am not sure whether it can be implemented or not, but we will look into the whole thing. Clauses 13 and 14 have a common interest for both Scotland and England, but as my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will be dealing comprehensively with them I trust that my hon. Friend will not mind if I leave them, because I wish to come to the particularly important matter upon which he last touched so authoritatively.

Mr. Snadden: Will the Parliamentary Secretary also deal with Clause 13, which is a Scottish-point?

Mr. Chapman: This point on Clause 13 has been put forward to a certain extent outside, but I do not know that the volume of criticism has been such as to justify any great Amendment in the Clause as it stands; but I can promise my hon. Friend that we will look at it between now and the Committee stage. If therefore my hon. Friend is agreeable, and if the House is agreeable, I should like to pass to Clause 16, in which we have a special interest in Scotland.
The House will have listened with great attention to the observations of my hon. Friend on the question of artificial insemination. Coming from one who has held the blue riband of cattle breeding, his words, like his prizewinners, if I may say so, carry a very proper weight. We have this question of control of artificial insemination very much in mind in Scotland. My hon. Friend, in voicing the anxieties of breeders, was at the same time maintaining his progressive outlook. It is possible that many breeders are not aware of the terms of Clause 16. I would point out how much the emphasis of the Clause is on control. It is easy to see how pedigree herds could be harmed if artificial insemination were left uncontrolled. Therefore, the views of the breed societies in Scotland are being, and will be, taken into full account.
A representative committee appointed by the Agricultural Improvement Council of Scotland has sat since November, considering this matter very carefully, and although it has not yet reported I should be surprised if it did not wholeheartedly


approve the terms of Clause 16. The chairman of this committee on artificial insemination, Major Brebner, is particularly qualified to preside over such a committee being chairman of the directors of the Highland and Agricultural Society, and also vice-chairman of the Aberdeen-Angus Society. The remaining members are representative of the National Farmers' Union and Chamber of Agriculture of Scotland, of veterinary science, of animal genetics, and of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland. I do not share my hon. Friend's suspicions about the attitude of veterinary science in this matter. I think that the knowledge and research which they bring will be valuable in enabling us to obtain the right kind of control. The first act of the committee was to invite the breed societies to put their views before the committee, and representations have been received from the Aberdeen-Angus, Ayrshire, Scottish Shorthorn Breeders, Galloway and the British Friesian Societies. Artificial insemination has been practised very little in Scotland, but I think my hon. Friend will agree that it is very desirable to establish control at a very early stage. I think he appreciates that the power to make regulations for Scotland will rest with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but there will be the closest consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, in order to secure effective co-ordination. On the question of establishing a centre north of the Border, already, as my hon. Friend is aware, the field experiments alluded to by the Minister of Agriculture are taking place in the south. Whether such a centre should be established is a matter for careful consideration; also one does not know what the committee studying this matter may report. It is a point which I will bring to the notice of my right hon. Friend. I would like to give the most complete assurance that the Secretary of State will take all practical and reasonable; steps to ensure that the pedigree breeds for which Scotland is justly famous, and which have been built up by such toil and expense, will not be imperilled.

Mr. Kirkwood: The hon. Member said that the special breeding of Scottish sheep is not going to be interfered with. Does that mean that the sheep in Shetland, which produce

Shetland wool, which makes the finest tweed—a speciality in Shetland and the Western Isles—are not going to be crossed, in order to get quantity as against quality, because of war conditions?

Mr. Chapman: Among the other things which the Committee are considering, and on which they are receiving representations, is the question of sheep and horses. The breeding societies in Scotland are making representations, and my hon. Friend may rest assured that the sheep to which he has referred will not be in any danger. As far as sheep are concerned, the practice of artificial insemination if it comes is bound to be a very slow matter. The control regulations which it will be possible for my right hon. Friend to make will certainly protect anything of that kind in Scotland. In any case particular note will be taken of the point my hon. Friend has made.

Mr. Kirkwood: This is a serious point. I do not think the Under-Secretary follows me. The Shetland sheep produce much less wool than is produced by other sheep. At the moment, because of the war, there is a desire to get quantity as against quality In order to get greater quantity from the Shetland sheep, the breed is to be crossed. If that happens the special wool from the Shetland sheep will never be produced again. It will be another definite injustice to Scotland if this breed goes entirely out of existence. I want an assurance that that is not going to happen.

Mr. Chapman: The whole point of control is to see that breeds are not destroyed. The anxiety which my hon. Friend the Member for West Perth has expressed on the cattle side, and my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) on the sheep side, is covered in Clause 16, which gives power to the Secretary of State to make Regulations, to see that the wrong things do not happen to these breeds. My hon. Friend can rest assured on that point. If he desires it, I will get into touch with him on the matter. The observations of both hon. Members will be fully considered. I am glad that the Bill has been welcomed, because it will assist Scottish farmers, who, like their colleagues elsewhere in these islands, are doing such a fine job in the national war effort.

Major York: The contribution of the hon. Member for West Perth (Mr. Snadden) opened my eyes, and, I think, those of other Members, to some of the dangers which undoubtedly may exist—I use the word "may" on purpose—for the pedigree herds and flocks of this country. I do not think it can be too strongly stressed that our pedigree herds will almost certainly be one of our greatest export commodities after the war. We have no indication at all of the long-term effect of artificial insemination. For all we know—and those of us who are always looking forward hope that it is so—there may be no deleterious effect but scientific breeding—and by that I mean test tube breeding—has always had its dangers. I do not believe that in one or two generations we can learn anything about it. I caution owners of pedigree herds and the Ministry to take all possible care, and not to rush too readily into artificial insemination where pedigree herds are concerned. It is in the realm of the non-pedigree commercial herd that an improvement can be expected, and it is there that we require improvement, both in dairying cattle and in fattening cattle. I see in this a method of rapidly raising the standard and of creating the basis—

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned—

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Act, 1943
2. Minister of Town and Country Planning Act, 1943.
3. Workmen's Compensation Act, 1943.
4. Crown Lands Act, 1943.

And to the following Measures passed under the provisions of the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919—

New Parishes Measure, 1943.
Episcopal Endowments and Stipends Measure, 1943.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL

Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Major York: I was saying that the artificial insemination provisions would provide a rapid increase in upgrading of cattle, and I was going on to say that I saw in it the chance to make rapid progress in the elimination of disease. There are, I believe, sufficient, or nearly sufficient, safeguards against abuses, but I would ask my right hon. Friend to consider whether the keeping of records by the sellers would not be an additional safeguard which should be considered. I hope that he will look at that matter in that way. The hon. Member for West Perth was worried about the effect upon the men who sell bulls, but I am certain—and this was said by one hon. Member—that we cannot pay too much attention to one section of our industry if the schemes which are in mind are for the benefit of the whole of the industry and the country.
I would add one word on the drainage provisions. If it were not for the fact that we know that the Minister has done a great job of work, I would feel inclined to accuse him of some complacency in regard to the drainage provisions, and, in particular, in regard to the provision of labour for these schemes. I have personal knowledge, and so has he, of many schemes in this country which are being held up—of ordinary ditching on the farms—schemes which had been got out last year and, in some cases, the year before by internal drainage boards—the drainage of marshes whereby many hundreds or thousands of acres of highly fertile land could be brought into production, are held up by this lack of labour. Further, we hear on all sides that labour is being brought to this country for drainage work in the form of Italian prisoners, but it is always the case of jam to-morrow but never jam to-day. I would implore the right hon. Gentleman and the Government to reconsider the whole question of labour for the industry, for we cannot go much further without a greatly increased labour supply. We cannot ask the Women's Land Army—I am sorry to say that Cinderella of the uniformed Services—to undertake this heavy work. It is men we want, and I ask the Minister to try, and to go on


trying, for more labour and equipment and to let nothing stand in his way to attain the object of draining this land.
My last point deals with Clause 14. This Clause has been discussed fairly extensively, and I will confine myself to some remarks upon the third Sub-section of the Clause. I am not concerned with the rights of landlord or tenant, but I am concerned with the effect that this Clause will have on the soil of Britain, on the maintenance of that soil and on the possible dangers which arise out of this Clause from the provisions in the Bill. As I see it, the Clause leaves wide open the gate for that supremely dangerous of all processes, "tumbling down to grass." We are not all of us so optimistic of the future as my right hon. Friend, and while the agricultural industry gratefully acknowledges the recognition which has been accorded to it by the people and the Government during this war, yet it will not take kindly to a year or two of recognition and praise if it is to be followed by a decade of solitary confinement. I would like to see a token from the Minister that this land which has been reclaimed shall not be allowed to revert again to its almost primeval state. I had hoped that the Minister would have explained this in his speech but he left it untouched. If a tenant quits after having spent large sums of money on the clearing of boulders and tree stumps and other impediments to cultivation, under Sub-section (3) of Clause 14 the valuation will be based for all practical purposes upon the actual money expended by the tenant.
I see that my right hon. Friend indicates dissent, but I think you will find that in the majority of valuations it is the cost of the work that is taken into consideration and not the rise in the annual value of the land. If the landlord raises the rent for the new tenant, then there is a clear case of an increase in the annual value, but if—and this will be generally the case in the majority of holdings—no increase on annual value is taken into account, then I cannot see that any compensation will be payable at all. In the case where one or two fields have been improved on a farm, that does not necessarily increase the annual value, and, therefore, the rental value of the farm. Again there will be no compensation payable if what the Minister says is correct. I think I am right in saying that the Minister stressed the fact

that the increase in the annual value was the sole criterion.
Many improvements under this Sub-section will cost a great deal more than the value of the land. It is not wise, therefore, to saddle one partner in the industry with the ultimate cost of this improvement, for the landowner is already bearing an over-heavy burden in repairs and maintenance. If these sums which may have to be found after the war for improvements are to be found by the landowner they must come out of the rental—and it should be observed that the cost cannot be included in the maintenance claim. Then there will be less to spend upon annual repairs and maintenance, and what is how an improvement of an uneconomic part of the estate will become a burden in the future upon the economic part of the estate. I feel that is an unwise move, particularly in reference to the marginal land which is such a problem at the present time. I ask the Minister to consider the Clause in this light, and if it is in the national interest that these improvements and these heavy burdens should be brought into effect—and I welcome them—it is only the national emergency which makes that so. I feel there is a very strong case for the Ministry helping to relieve the future burden on an industry which is already over-burdened. Scientific farming and scientific breeding have come to stay, and I believe that this Bill is an terpretation of that spirit.

Mr. Granville: We are having a rather sedate Debate, to-day on agriculture. The Minister, who has had great success, always achieves a successful technique in getting Bills of this sort through the House. I do not intend to disturb that atmosphere to-day; I desire only to ask him one or two questions. The first is with regard to Clause 16, Sub-section (2), which says with regard to artificial animal insemination:
Regulations made under this section may apply to all or any of the following animals, that is to say, cattle, sheep, goats, swine, horses, domestic fowls, turkeys, geese and ducks.
Having waited so long for this Bill, I did think that we would have received a pronouncement from the Minister of Government policy in regard to this matter. But the Minister confined himself to a very brief statement. I was hoping he would tell us not only what is to happen at Cambridge and Reading with regard to the


experiments being conducted there in artificial animal insemination, but I also hoped that he would give some lead to the agricultural industry as to what is the Government's intention and what is the policy of his own Department. As he knows, certain individuals in the country have spent a good deal of money, with great knowledge and interest, not from a commercial point of view, on some of these important experiments. The Minister did not tell us what will happen under the Bill about the experiments which have been undertaken by these private individuals, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, when he comes to reply to the Debate, will give us some idea as to whether these people are to be allowed to continue the experiments for which they have sunk considerable sums of money—subject, of course, to control or licence by the Department—or whether they are to be forced to shut up shop and leave the experiments to the official stations at Cambridge and Reading.
The only other point to which I wish to draw attention is in connection with Clause 5. It concerns the River Blyth, which affects the Southwold area of Suffolk where, I understand, thousands of acres of good grassland and arable land are flooded. I know that the Department have done the best they can in the past to deal with this situation, but I understand that at the first full, or flood, tide this area will again be severely flooded. In the village of Walberswick they are at times completely cut off from the world and have to depend for their existence on supplies obtained by boat. The predicament of the people there is very severe, and I ask the Minister to look into this question to see what can be done in conjunction with the local authority and the catchment board. I hope he will be able to prevent the worst from happening and this agricultural area from being badly flooded again in the future.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: In making a brief contribution to this Debate I have been influenced by what the hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major York) said about the need for more labour on farms. I do not say that the powers we have given to the Minister are unnecessary but I would like to ask him whether he has the tools, or will have them, with which to finish the job? I

ask the question for this reason. I had a conversation with one or two officers of a war agricultural committee a few weeks ago about an area containing 700 acres of marshy land which has been brought into cultivation this year. In that area I noticed one or two modern ploughs—large type disc ploughs, I believe they are called—but I learned that the farmer undertaking this responsible work on behalf of the agricultural committee had only one of these ploughs. I was told that the Minister agreed with the policy of exporting these ploughs and I was disturbed. I inquired later whether this was true or not; I went to one of the "higher-ups" of the Ministry and was told that these ploughs and certain other equipment necessary for agriculture to-day were still being exported. Will the Parliamentary Secretary find out whether that is true or not? I believe that more disc ploughs are being exported to-day than are being used by war agricultural committees. That is a wholly unsatisfactory state of affairs. I suggest that while you are obtaining powers to acquire land, drain marshes and make the land arable you ought to assure the House that you are not doing something in the interests either of engineers or of the export trade, which actually injures the chance of making use of that land when you have it.
The Parliamentary Secretary is well aware of another part of the country where there have been quarrels in recent years between members of the different parties on the catchment and drainage boards. The big authorities have not cared very much about the difficulties of the smaller authorities, urban and rural, whose areas lie towards the estuary of the river concerned. Parliament has given power to the catchment boards to levy a rate on the local authorities who have quarrelled as to the amount of money they should call for, or the amount of work that should be done in any particular area. The result has been that in my own division, which is well known to the Parliamentary Secretary, the district most seriously affected has had to endure from this problem more than would otherwise have been necessary because of the niggardliness and the peculiar attitude of bigger neighbours. A great amount of work that ought to have been done has not been done. It is two years since the worst period of flooding in that district,


but at that time many hundreds of acres were involved. I do not know what progress has been made with the work that is now being undertaken, but it seems to me that in the power which the Minister is now seeking he is not claiming the right to alter directly or to improve upon the power that was given to him under previous Acts, particularly with reference to the area to which I have referred. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that there ought to be some sort of safeguard against the position that will arise when local authorities quarrel and so prevent the county war agricultural committees from getting on with the job and protecting against floods, owing to the local authorities not feeling disposed to levy the rate which Parliament authorises them to do.
With regard to the first point that I made, I know that the Minister is very conversant with the types of agricultural machinery that are being manufactured. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us whether or not this machinery is being exported, and if so, what ratio is available to the county war agricultural committees. If it be the case that certain types of ploughs are unpopular, let us encourage their popularity by using them at home instead of allowing them to be exported. I ask my right hon. Friend to be very cautious in examining the figures, because many members of county war agricultural committees are very much dissatisfied with the actual distribution of equipment at the present time.

Mr. David Grenfell: I wish to extend a welcome to this Bill and to thank the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture for his precise and efficient introduction and explanation of it. It contains a collection of miscellaneous provisions intended to help agriculture; it contains nothing that is revolutionary or really new, except in regard to one Clause. We have been for a very long time dealing with the subject of Clause 1, which provides for greater facilities for adding lime to the soil in various parts of the country. That is a revival of a very old practice which was widely followed and regarded not only as beneficial but essential to good cultivation in the early days of my connection with farming. I lived in a rural area and I well remember the convoys of lime that

went to distant farms from the quarries and lime-kilns scattered over that part of the country. In 1926 or 1927, I made a speech pressing for the utmost facilities for the application of lime to the soil of our country once again. I am very glad that this thing has been done. The assistance that has been given already has meant the use of considerably increased quantities of lime, with beneficial results throughout the country. There is a figure in this connection which shows how trifles are important. The cost of the additional subsidy is estimated to be £412,000. That represents the addition occasioned by raising the assistance from one-half to three-quarters of the cost. The sum of £412,000 is a small one in a country where we produce food to a value of something like £412,000,000 a year. The one-tenth of one per cent. of additional cost, as given in this figure, is expenditure which is fully justified, for it helps to bring the lime within the reach of the farmers, and especially the small farmers, who are called upon to extract the utmost quantity of food and nutrition from their fields.
Reference has been made by some hon. Members to the employment of land girls. I fully agree with what was said on this subject by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert). I still think that in many parts of the country there are numbers of elderly men who could do this job far better than the young women and leave the young women to do work more suitable to them. Several of the Clauses in the Bill deal with a subject which runs through the dim antiquity of our national records—the drainage and reclamation of land. I wish to compliment the Minister and the Board of Agriculture on the way in which they have enabled vast areas to be better drained than was the case even a few short years ago. We have seen some good results, but they are not yet quite good enough. Even now one sees too many sheets of water after rain. I sympathise with the Minister of Agriculture; the Secretary for Mines likes to see rain and mild weather this winter, but the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture has had a little too much of it. However, even after the very heavy rain of this winter, the floods are less than they normally would have been. Something has been done to deal with flooding and to maintain the land in a better state for cultivation.
The right hon. Member for South Mol-ton referred to another subject in which I have been very much interested for a number of years. In my division, too, the sight of large areas of moorland is a familiar one. The reason they have remained moorland can probably be explained historically, but it is not always because the land is inferior land and it may have been due to questions of ownership, tradition and public claims. I would like to believe that there was more substance in Clause 10 of the Bill. On the Committee stage I would like the Minister to respond to a demand from the House that we really embark on a scheme of reclaiming commonlands and bringing them under cultivation. There are many millions of acres in such areas. Much of this land should be brought into cultivation, and to do this it would be essential to have draining and fencing done. I have an idea that all this land should be reclaimed, providing access for the commoners who have rights, giving the public their rights of access, but ensuring the proper drainage, and improving the cultivation and pasture of those vast areas and adding to the production of our food supplies. There is soil that is overworked and soil that is underworked, and these underworked commons should be brought in to relieve the pressure on over-cultivated areas.
Clauses 11 to 13 deal with questions which will be well looked after without my assistance. The right hon. Gentleman will get the assistance of people who are interested in the ownership of land, and they will probably say something on these matters. I was very pleased to hear what the hon. Member for West Perth (Mr. Snadden) said on a delicate and dangerous subject. I am glad that the machinery of artificial insemination is to be brought under control. I think a great degree of harm might be done otherwise. You cannot introduce a convenience of this kind without running the risk of all kinds of fraud and mischief. Indeed, I could conceive of no more effective way of hurting the country, in anticipation of war, than to interfere with the machinery for the procreation of poultry and the various categories of animal life which are intended to come under Clause 16. We should be very careful. I hope the Board of Agriculture will not be induced to experiment too heavily, but will test this system all the way, and see how far the fears which have been expressed may be

avoided and what measures can be taken to ensure that this thing is not carried to the point of risking the maintenance of our animal population. I welcome the presence of my right hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary and I should like to say how much I respect his knowledge and industry in a new field. I feel quite sure that in Committee he will enlarge upon the answer that he is to give to the House to-day.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. Tom Williams): This Debate is characteristic of the House of Commons in war-time. The House is extremely jealous of the rights of individuals and hesitant to concede to a Minister more power than he needs, yet it has proved time and again its readiness to set aside partial and private interests wherever the national interest is concerned. To-day's Debate is a further manifestation of its attitude towards these matters. I should like to express my thanks to hon. Members for the general reception that has been given to the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Minister has said that it involves no fundamental alterations. It deals, however, with a number of minor modifications and improvements born of experience, and its one object is to expedite food production. Fortunately, the House of Commons, as well as the nation as a whole, is not only receptive of new ideas but is, I think, appreciative of what has been achieved during the last three years, since we started so far behind scratch, with regard to labour and the absence of drainage and with the many other difficulties which confronted agriculture in September, 1939.
It ought not to take too long to reply to the points that have been raised. The right hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope), as one would expect, raised the question of Clause 14. I can only repeat what my right hon. Friend has said, that the Bill makes no material change so far as the landowner is concerned and the position remains as it was when the gentlemen's agreement was made in 1939. I refer to the White Paper, W.A.C. 1510. If the words in it were translated into the Bill they would not make any material improvement there. The agreement seems to be extremely specific, though there


was one point with which the right hon. Baronet disagreed. Paragraph 4 states:
It is proposed that landowners should be entitled to lodge claims at the end of the war for compensation in respect of grassland ploughed up under the Order and that the compensation which will be claimed by, and payable to, the person who is the owner on the date the claim is made will, at the option of the Minister,
—that, apparently is the point of difficulty—
be based on either (a) the cost of restoring the land, so far as is practicable to the condition in which it would be but for the ploughing up; or (b) a sum calculated with reference to the amount by which the annual value of the land or the farm is diminished by reason of the ploughing up.
The option that can be exercised by the Minister in accordance with this gentlemen's agreement seems to me not an unfair one, if we assume that the valuer who is treating the land for compensation purposes is the type of person we all expect he will be and, just as the gentlemen's agreement was made in 1939, so it remains in 1943 and no change, as far as the landowner is concerned, has been or is being made in any part of the Bill. The right hon. Baronet and his friends outside the House may, perhaps, doubt the interpretation to be placed upon paragraph (b) as to the option to be exercised by the Minister, but it does not seem to me that there is anything about which one could really complain.
Another observation was made with regard to Sub-section (3), which refers to compensation to a tenant who, in pursuance of directions, has carried out certain improvements on his holding. There, again, I imagine that if the valuer is the efficient person we expect he will be his mind will not be on, shall I say, 1943, 1944 or 1945, the year when the landlord submits his claim. His mind will be a comprehensive and understanding mind, and in those circumstances it seems to me that there can be little or no justification for fear, doubt or apprehension as to what the position of the land owner will be.

Major York: How far do the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act affect what the right hon. Gentleman has just said?

Mr. Williams: I do not quite see how far the Agricultural Holdings Act can

affect this. All the regulations relating to compensation are on record and I do not think it is necessary to go into the highly technical details of the duties of the valuer when he is called in for this purpose. The law of compensation is well known and understood by institutions outside this House. It is only the terms of this White Paper which are in question to-day. The one complaint of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rye was that the option ought not to remain with the Minister as to whether the land shall be re-seeded and restored to its former pre-ploughing-up condition, or the compensation calculated with reference to the amount by which the annual value of the farm is diminished by reason of the ploughing-up. My point is not to deny the fear, doubt or apprehension of my right hon. and gallant Friend, but to explain that the Bill makes no change in the circumstances that existed before its introduction. I know, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Sir E. Shepperson) and my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rye observed, that landowners have encountered difficulties during the war that are not always appreciated. It is true that they have had to pay higher wages to estate workers when the wages of agricultural workers have gone up. They have had to meet to a certain extent the cost of drainage schemes, and the cost of repairs to outbuildings and so on have increased. This Bill does not affect those things, but we appreciate that difficulties do exist with the landowners. I can only plead that this Bill is all in the interests of the national cause, and I am sure that we can count on the continued co-operation of landowners despite their doubts and fears about the gentlemen's agreement of 1939.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) raised several points many of which were touched upon by hon. Members who followed him. He referred specifically to Clause 10 which largely concerns Cumberland. It is a purely permissive Clause and it provides that should a large area of common land be improved for grazing either by draining or re-seeding, then the Minister would be able to reclaim the cost of undertaking that work. My right hon. Friend has explained that this largely refers to a big area in Cumberland. With regard to drainage, field and otherwise, as my right


hon. Friend very well knows—and this reply can be given to half a dozen other Members who have spoken—this is more or less conditioned by two or three things such as the amount of available labour and the amount of machinery that we have been able to produce or to import. It will be readily agreed that we have not been unsuccessful when I state that we have £750,000 worth of drainage machinery circulated in this country and no fewer than 400 excavators, and that a large number are on order and are likely to be delivered in the course of time. My hon. Friend the Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts) asked whether tile drainage had been mechanised. That is one of those highly technical questions that he ought to put to a technician and not to an amateur like myself. I am afraid that I am unable to give the reply that he would like me to give.

Mr. Roberts: Are these tile drainage machines being tested by the Ministry?

Mr. Williams: We have already machinery committees in every county and a special machinery committee representative of the whole nation, and I imagine that this will be one of the problems under consideration. In referring to artificial insemination my hon. Friend suggested that my right hon. Friend ought not to be hesitant but that, if he is satisfied we are on the right horse, he should proceed fairly rapidly. Other hon. Members called for caution, hesitation and so forth, and thus automatically they cancelled each other out in such a way that, between them, they made a splendid case for Clause 16. It gives my right hon. Friend control over this experiment which has great possibilities for good but is fraught also with great possibilities for disaster if badly used. I can say that before any regulations are made breed societies will certainly be consulted.
It is the object of the Ministry to carry the breed societies with them because of the doubts and fears about mismanagement of an extraordinary thing like this. My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster referred to the farmer, the worker and the landowner and the cause of equity, and said that it was not difficult to get a higher wage for the farm labourer, that it was less easy to get something for the farmer, but that it was

utterly impossible to get anything for the landowner. When I went to the Ministry of Agriculture in May, 1940, the average wage for agriculture was 32s. 6d. a week, so that whoever had been trying to get that wage increased had not been as successful as my hon. Friend would think. I agree with him, however, that during the past two or three years landowners have had certain difficulties which are not generally appreciated. He referred to the question of drainage costs falling on the owner of the land. Clearly, that must be so. He will not forget that in the interests of producing the maximum amount of food the Treasury provide 50 per cent. of the total cost of drainage schemes. To that extent the Government have not been unfair.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon (Major York) and my hon. Friend the Member for Eye (Mr. Granville) also referred to artificial insemination. Quite clearly this proposal is a delicate one and needs extremely careful handling. The only object of Clause 16 is to see that proper control is exercised in the interests of those who for many generations have won a splendid reputation for this country by the grand livestock which has been produced, I am sure that my right hon. Friend would be the last person in the world even to place that reputation in doubt, and that is why he asks for the power to exercise the control which is set up under Clause 16. My hon. Friend the Member for the Eye Division asked what is to become of the private experiments which are taking place. All I can say is that we have two sets of buildings, one at Cambridge and one at Reading, where very careful experiments are proceeding, and on the results of those experiments my right hon. Friend will be able to take action. Private individuals who in the meantime undertake experiments or investigations will do so on their own, and one can say nothing more than that if, when positive results are available and action can be taken, they have been fortunate in their private experiments they will be able to join in the new activities. Beyond that I am afraid that it is impossible to go. With regard to the unfortunate flooding in my hon. Friend's division, I understand that it has been extremely severe and is a grave misfortune to local people. As regards the Doncaster area, I myself know something


of what these floods involve. The Department are fully alive to what has happened in that area and whatever assistance they can give in order to avoid a repetition of it they will be happy to give.
The question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. E. Walkden) regarding disc ploughs was a perfectly proper one and I am sure he will be interested in the reply. It is true that a very small number of disc ploughs which were produced in this country for export and are of no value at all in this country have been exported to those parts of the Empire for which they are most suitable. I repeat that they were made for export and are being exported, because they are of little or no value in this country. It would be far from the wish of the Ministry of Agriculture to countenance the export of agricultural machinery which we require here. For three years or more we have been fighting a battle, a winning battle, to get the maximum amount of machinery for use on our farms from Land's End to John O'Groats. The export of the few disc ploughs to which the hon. Member referred cannot have caused grave dissatisfaction among members of war agricultural executive committees, since there have been so few of them, and they are of so little use in comparison with the normal ploughs operating in this country.

Mr. E. Walkden: But does the right hon. Gentleman deny that some progressive farmers are pleased to receive these ploughs and are doing a very successful job with them even to-day?

Mr. Williams: Yes, but my hon. Friend must not forget that both American and Dominion farmers have sacrificed ploughs and other agricultural machinery which they themselves required in order that they might be exported to this country to help us to achieve the magnificent results which have been attained. It is not a question of our sending away what we require. On balance, the position is 99 to 1 in favour of this country.

Mr. Walkden: The farmers say differently.

Mr. Williams: A particular farmer may say differently, but not "the farmers" generally. It may be that one out of

the 370,000 farmers in England and Wales has made that observation, but the other 369,999 would not say so. With regard to catchment boards and drainage boards, my hon. Friend will appreciate that I had something to do with the setting up of catchment boards and know the difficulty of inspiring local authorities, who have to put up the money, to spend the 2d. rate and get on with the job as fast as one would like them to do so. He said the local authorities were complaining. Local authorities have complained from the very first day. Bradford, Leeds, Sheffield—all the big authorities who shower their blessings, in the shape of thousands of gallons of water, upon the lower areas, have said that they were not affected by drainage and did not like to pay. They never have liked to pay. All I can say is that my right hon. Friend and the department closely identified with drainage have done their very best to inspire these large towns and cities with patriotic effort and energy and that so far they have not responded too badly.
The only other observation I need make is in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) who, as I should have expected, welcomed the Bill and expressed appreciation of the progress we have so far made. He referred to the question of reclaiming large areas of common land We may have machinery available to us now which would enable us to reclaim certain areas of land that have not so far been reclaimed, but there are other difficulties—phosphates, fertilisers, and so forth; and there is also the question of man-power. I can assure him that as far as we can extend the area available for cultivation we shall make the maximum use of man-power, machinery power and every power at our disposal, and that it will be our great joy to do so. This may be termed a small Measure, but it will be of very great value in extending the area that will be brought under drainage, will remove many difficulties here and there and will, I hope, in the months to come help us again to speed the plough.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for the next Sitting Day. [Captain McEwen.]

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.

[Colonel CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair.]

Resolved,
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to agriculture, agricultural land and the drainage of land, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such additional Exchequer contributions and grants, and such additional expenses of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Secretary of State, as may become payable by virtue of provisions of the said Act, whether retrospective or not,—

(a) increasing the maximum amount of Exchequer contributions under section one of the Agriculture Act, 1937, towards purchases of lime;
(b) extending section fifteen of the Agriculture Act, 1937, to grants towards expenditure incurred by a drainage authority after the thirty-first day of July, nineteen hundred and forty-four;
(c) extending the definition of agricultural land for the purposes of Part III and section twenty-nine of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1940, and the Land Drainage (Scotland) Act, 1941;
(d) extending the powers as to drainage schemes under section fourteen of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous War Provisions) Act, 1940, and under that section as set out in the First Schedule to the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1941;
(e) empowering the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Secretary of State to acquire:—

(i) land for drainage works;
(ii) land which was in the same ownership as land acquired under section nine of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1941;

(f) providing for the control of artificial insemination of animals.—(King's Recommendation Signified.)—[Mr. R. S. Hudson.]

Resolution to be reported upon the next Sitting Day.

Orders of the Day — UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES (TRUSTS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I hope that this Bill will commend itself to the House and prove to be entirely un-controversial. It is a Bill which enables schemes to be made by the bodies to which it applies for putting into one fund the various endowments which are at

present held by them in separate trust funds. The bodies to which it applies are the two Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, the Colleges in those Universities, and Winchester College. The suggestion for the Bill came primarily from Oxford University. Cambridge University desires to be included in the Bill, and to have the powers it confers, as also does Winchester College. I should like to make it clear at the outset that the Bill in no way affects the purposes of the various trusts. If one may take an example, say Oxford University, there are at present some 260 trusts, most of them administered by the University, all of them concerned with the University. As a result, there are 260 separate trust funds. If a scheme is promoted under this Bill, it will enable the various investments which form the endowments of these separate trusts to be formed into a single fund. The trusts, of course, are very varied in magnitude. The income of some is several thousands, and the income descends until one has, I think, an annual income of £1 19s. 6d. I might mention at this stage that the well-known and munificent trust established by Lord Nuffield would not come into any scheme which is proposed to be put forward under this Bill.
The purposes of the Bill are, I think, two-fold. Everyone who is fortunate enough to have investments knows that even if the investments are trust investments it is wise to have a wide and varied list. This Bill will enable all the various funds, some of them with quite small holdings, to have their proper share of the income of a fund. It will be widely spread over the whole range of trust securities. It is felt desirable that the power to make these schemes should be given at this time, because as hon. Members know, even among trustee securities there have in the past been fluctuations among certain groups of them, particularly, perhaps, railway trustee securities after the last war. That is one reason why in the interests of all these trusts there should be a common fund. Another example of the convenience of a scheme is this: At present you may have a single form of trustee stock held by a very large number of these trusts. If the university who deals with the investments of these moneys thinks it would be better to sell that stock and invest the trust money in something else, there have to be 100 different transfers and 100


different purchases and re-allocation of the separate holdings among the fund. That, I think, briefly describes the main purposes of the Bill.
Clause 2 sets out the scope and the various things that can be done under the scheme, and I do not think the House would want me to go into them in detail. I might just refer to the fact that, under the present arrangement, if one of these bodies or one of these trusts sells land, the proceeds are held by the Ministry of Agriculture, and the Minister of Agriculture's relations with these various bodies under the Universities and College Estates Act, 1925, is one of the reasons why this is done by public Bill. Any scheme has to be laid before Parliament in accordance with Clause 3, and I think it is right that I should also tell the House that the principle embodied in this Bill was a principle which came before a Committee of this House under a private Bill promoted by Liverpool University in 1931. The principle, that is, of having one fund for many trusts, was carefully examined, as such Bills are, by a Committee of this House, and approved by them and by Parliament. Therefore, this Bill does not introduce a principle which has not already been approved by Parliament. Clause 4 removes doubts which have existed, though I think not very strong doubts, with regard to what has already been going on for some years in connection with the contribution which colleges make to the university and the levying of a proportion of that contribution on the trust funds. I hope that is a sufficient explanation of the Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for the next Sitting Day.—[Captain McEwen.]

Orders of the Day — POLICE (APPEALS) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Colonel CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Extension of right of appeal to Secretary of State.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Dr. Russell Thomas: I believe this Clause gives the Home Secretary

powers to increase a policeman's sentence on appeal. Although it is too late, unfortunately, to move an Amendment, I would like to say a word or two, because I brought the point up on Second Reading, and I was not quite satisfied with the Home Secretary's answer. I do not say for one moment that the Home Secretary should not have powers to increase a sentence; nevertheless, I do think that the process should be a little different from that embodied in this Clause. As far as the borough police are concerned, I have nothing to say. I believe their case still goes before the watch committee and then goes, on appeal, to the Home Secretary. In the case of a county policeman—and it is important, because many borough police are now to be transferred to the county police, and they are accustomed to appearing before the watch committee first before appealing to the Home Secretary—it is regrettable, I think, that in this Bill the Home Secretary did not make the disciplinary authority for the counties not the chief constable but the standing joint committee and that he did not make appeals from him go to the standing joint committee. The chief constable is the disciplinary authority at present. I think that is completely undesirable. It is very unfortunate that he should be, because he may in fact be the judge in his own cause, which is highly undesirable. If a policeman is punished he has to go straight from dismissal by the chief constable, or from punishment by the chief constable, to the Home Secretary. He might quite easily think that the chief constable is biased against him, such as an offence against the regulations made by the chief constable. Therefore he should go before a court of first instance. I asked the Home Secretary in regard to this point on Second Reading. I would like, if I may, to touch on the Question I asked and the answer he gave. I said:
If the right hon. Gentleman is going to provide for the penalty to be increased on appeal to himself, does he not think that may deter constables from appealing, because they may feel that although they are suffering under an injustice an appeal would be hardly worth while if there was risk of an increase in the punishment.
The Home Secretary said:
I have considered that point. There is nothing new about this proposal. As my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General will agree, it has been a feature of the procedure in the Court of Criminal Appeal for 35 years.


When a person appeals to the Court of Criminal Appeal he runs that risk."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th January, 1943; col. 122, Vol. 386.]
I pointed out that nobody goes to the Court of Criminal Appeal before going to a court of first instance and that that did not apply in the case of county police whose organisations are now to be very much enlarged owing to the amalgamation which the right hon. Gentleman proposes. Then the right hon. Gentleman gave me his answer. After I had protested, he said:
If the hon. Member is going to introduce as many stages as possible in this painful process, he can do so, but I do not think it would be a good thing. We must have this provision for two reasons. First, the local authority may itself be lax in its discipline. Let us not forget that there is a danger of under-enforcing discipline as well as of over-enforcing it.
The right hon. Gentleman dismisses this as introducing more painful processes. This is typical of the debating tactics of the right hon. Gentleman; no one is more adept at trying to prove that black is white, but there are many of us who are obstinate enough to look upon black as blacker than ever, after we have listened to the obviously subtle endeavours of the right hon. Gentleman. However, let me go back to my point. If the policeman went before a standing joint committee, it would still be open to the right hon. Gentleman to increase the sentence upon appeal and he would thus provide against any laxity on the part of the watch committee or the standing joint committee. The right hon. Gentleman ended by saying that the policeman
must weigh up the question of whether he is likely to get something or whether there is a risk of losing. Between those two considerations I think he will take a balanced view on the question of whether to appeal or not."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th January, 1943; col. 122, Vol. 386.]
That is a most undesirable thing for the Home Secretary to say. He says that the policeman must consider whether there is something to gain or to lose, but the whole point that has to be considered is whether the policeman has been justly treated or not and whether the cause of justice would not be better served by the process which I suggest.
The right hon. Gentleman also said:
I do not expect a flood of appeals as a consequence of this Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th January, 1943; col. 120, Vol. 386.]

Of course he would not, quite naturally. A policeman would very much think twice before he ran any further risk of going straight to the right hon. Gentleman from punishment or dismissal by the chief constable. He said that many men who had suffered unjustly would be forced to take a balanced view of the matter; quite clearly many would not take the trouble to appeal; whereas if they went first before the standing joint committee, it would be very much better. It would be a safeguard and more in the course of ordinary justice. Should he then not be satisfied, a policeman would have the right of appeal to the Home Secretary, who could rightly and properly give him further punishment should he disagree with the committee. That is the position as I see it.
It is regrettable that the right hon. Gentleman has not seen fit to do this in the case of county policemen, especially now that he is enlarging the county authorities by absorbing into them many borough authorities. No doubt he will absorb many more. It is unfortunate that the right hon. Gentleman did not include in the Bill a procedure similar to the procedure in the boroughs, that his case be heard by the standing joint committee and then an appeal to himself. That is far more equitable, and it would suggest to the county policeman that his case would be treated extremely fairly. It would also satisfy many of us who are concerned about this centralising of the power of the police—which has many dangers—and the desire of the right hon. Gentleman to get that power into his own hands. If I had had the time, which I have not had lately, I would have moved an Amendment to the Clause, but I want to put my protest on record.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): My hon. Friend has covered a good deal of the ground that we covered in the Debate on the Second Reading. As I understand it, the principal point which he wants to raise is the question of the power of the Secretary of State either to increase the penalty or to decrease it when an appeal is made to him against the decision of a watch committee in a borough or a chief constable in a county. There are, of course, very similar provisions in our criminal law. I think that in every case where there is an appeal, the court


appealed to has the right to increase the sentence as well as to decrease it if it thinks fit. That seems to me to be a wise and salutary provision, because, if it is a case of "Heads I win and tails I do not lose" from the point of view of the appellant when an appeal is made, there will be an appeal against every decision of a watch committee or a chief constable. The officer against whom disciplinary action is being taken will have nothing to lose by way of appeal and the chance of something to gain; it is most undesirable in the rather wide range which we are now giving for appeals by police officers against decisions of the disciplinary authorities. It would be a hopeless proposition if, in every case where disciplinary action was taken in any one of the four cases provided for by the Bill, the whole thing had to be reconsidered by officials in the Home Office, who would report to the Home Secretary, who would then have to take a further decision in the matter.

Dr. Russell Thomas: I thought I had made my meaning clear—certainly the Under-Secretary of State has not answered my point. What I suggested was, that the chief constable of the county being no longer regarded as a disciplinary authority, the disciplinary authority should be the standing joint committee and that a constable should have his case heard by the standing joint committee. If a constable disagrees with the committee's decision, he should have the right of appeal to the Home Secretary, who should have power to increase the penalty. That would bring it into line with the boroughs, indeed, it would bring it into line with the administration of justice, in the manner to which we are accustomed.

Mr. Peake: The hon. Member has put forward a proposition which has been considered by Parliament before and no doubt ever since county police forces were first established. In point of fact, Parliament, in its wisdom, has never thought fit to make standing joint committees disciplinary authorities for police forces. It would be a complete novelty and, the standing joint committee being a mixed body, I am not at all sure that it is suitable as a disciplinary body. The existing system in the counties has worked with a great deal of satisfaction ever since county police forces have been established,

and I do not think that such a very wide and novel proposition, which has been rejected by Parliament on many previous occasions, can properly be discussed on this Motion.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third Time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — PURCHASE TAX (UTILITY FURNITURE)

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Waterhouse): I beg to move,
That the Purchase Tax (Exemptions) (No. 5) Order, 1942, dated 30th December, 1942, made by the Treasury under Section 20 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1940, a copy of which was presented to this House on 19th January, be approved.
The object of this Order is to remove the Purchase Tax from utility furniture. The plan to make utility furniture was designed to ensure that those who need the furniture most, newly-married people and people who have lost their houses by bombing, should get it at the most reasonable price possible. The price at which it is manufactured is controlled at every stage, the margin which goes to the retailer is strictly limited, and everything which can be made has been most carefully supervised. It would seem invidious that a tax should be charged on articles so produced. To many people the purchase of furniture is the largest capital expenditure of their lives, and that is another reason why Purchase Tax should not be charged. I think the House will agree that this is a measure of common sense as well as of necessity, and I hope they will allow the Order to pass.

Mr. Messer: For a long time it has been suggested in the furniture trade that the replacing of furniture of bombed-out people should be free from Purchase Tax. That has not been agreed to until now. I want, therefore, on behalf of those who are interested in this question, to express extreme satisfaction. Those who have made some study of the question are very satisfied indeed with the utility furniture in general. It has been planned and carried out in a way that has met with general satisfaction.

Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — EMERGENCY POWERS (DEFENCE)

COAL (CHARgES) (AMENDMENT) (No. 3) ORDER, 1942

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Major Lloyd George): I beg to move,
That the Coal (Charges) (Amendment) (No. 3) Order, 1942, dated 31st December, 1942, made by the Treasury under Section 2 of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, a copy of which was presented to this House on 19th January, be approved.
Last July a Coal (Charges) (Amendment) Order was approved. It raised the levy up to 3s. 7d. to meet, first, the increased cost of the wages agreed award, certain district costs, the guaranteed wages under the Essential Work Order, and, lastly, a measure of assistance to certain necessitous undertakings. Those four items roughly exhausted the levy, and since then the Government have been looking into the costs of the industry. As I announced some little time ago, they came to the conclusion that certain abnormal costs of winning the coal should be borne by the industry. It is, therefore, necessary to bring in this Order, raising the levy to 5s. We estimate that 6d. of the increase will be absorbed by the cost of the output bonus, which is not easy to estimate exactly, expenses involved in the compulsory transfer of men under the proposals of the White Paper, expenses which are incurred also under the White Paper scheme in regard to the training of new entries into the industry, and the cost of meeting old cases of pneumokoniosis. That, we estimate, will absorb 6d., and, as I announced in December, the remaining sum will be allowed to the industry to meet general increases in cost and to bring the district balances up to the level necessary to maintain efficient production. I would like the House to agree to the Order, on that explanation.

Mr. David Grenfell: This bringing together of separate coal Charges is certainly a matter of convenience, and it ought to be an opportunity for explaining the position to the general public, who might be led to their own conclusions without some explanation. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has given an explanation that this did not begin last week. Up to July, 1942, certain additional liabilities had been incurred by the industry, and prices had to be adjusted by the industry. Since then other changes

in the administration of new services in the industry have justified, in the Minister's opinion, an addition of 1s., of which 6d. is to be definitely set aside for meeting certain needs and balancing unequal claims from district to-district. I would ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman whether he would find it convenient—if not to-day, soon perhaps—to explain that this 5s. a ton is not a frivolous adventure into prices, but a thing which has grown, and which began with the coal levy which the House approved in December, 1940. Since then, other additional levies have been imposed, in addition to Charges on the industry. Who takes charge of these sums; to whom are they paid; what control is there over the fund; and how do the different districts benefit? If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will say that the Treasury, under the Ministry of Fuel, supervise the disbursement of these sums, that there is no possibility of abuse anywhere, and that this 5s. covers a long period and does not apply only to something which took place after he took office, his explanation will be helpful.

Major Lloyd George: Perhaps, with the permission of the House, I might explain. The Coal Charges Account is collected on the tonnage, a return of which is statutory. The money is paid into the Coal Charges Account, for which I am responsible, and it is administered, purely as a matter of machinery, by the district executive boards. I am responsible for the fund and the way it is applied. I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for making the point perfectly clear that these increases which we have asked for from time to time are to meet many things which we in this House are glad to see brought about.

Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS.

Resolved,
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Wrexham, a copy of which was presented to this House on 2nd February, be approved."—[Mr. Peake.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — SCHOOL OF ORIENTAL AND AFRICAN STUDIES.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Boulton.]

Sir Ernest Graham-Little: When I asked permission to bring before the House on the Adjournment a matter vitally affecting London University the position was that one of its most important schools—the School of Oriental and African Studies—was threatened with immediate eviction from its own specialised building, and it was in these circumstances that the Vice-Chancellor of the University commissioned me as Member for the University to draw the attention of Parliament to that position. This morning the School received an offer, made, I understand, upon the authority of the Cabinet itself, which assures to the School for the duration of the war the occupation of that part of the building which it now occupies, and as that very happy turn of events resolves that critical position, I need not detain the House any longer, except to thank whoever was responsible for that solution, and in a very particular measure the Leader of the House. I hope that this discussion will, at any rate, have drawn attention to the high importance of that School. It is the only School of its kind not only in this country and not only in the British Empire, but in the Anglo-Saxon world, and it has made so great a reputation that it has received an invitation to explain to certain authorities in the United States how they can start a similar school, as they have observed the very remarkable advance which has been made here. As that School conducts studies which are important for so large a part of the world, it is surely highly important that we should keep it and maintain its present activities.

The Lord President of the Council (Sir John Anderson): I am very reluctant to take up any of the time of the House after the statement my hon. Friend has just made, but I think it is important in this matter that any possibility of misapprehension as to what has actually occurred should be removed. My hon. Friend, who, I recognise, was careful in what he had to say in order to keep clear of some extravagant statements of the sort which have been appearing in the Press, did,

nevertheless, say that the School was threatened, because of Government action, with immediate eviction. I must really take exception to that presentation of the case, and I will tell the House in a very few words what the recent course of events has been. This School and the Ministry of Information have for many months past been near neighbours and since both the School and the Ministry required additional accommodation, the question has arisen, which of them should give way to the other. But this is not a case of a conflict between an institution carrying on is own work in its own way and powerful interests of the State. The interests of the State are involved here on both sides because, as my hon. Friend has said, this School is doing work of the most vital importance, in which no fewer than four Secretaries of State are most closely and intimately concerned. Nevertheless, a conflict did arise as between one public interest and another.
Such conflicts in matters of accommodation are constantly arising and methods have been found for resolving them. This particular case came, in the ordinary course before a tribunal which the Government had set up for dealing with such matters. If the position were that the Government were being called upon as the result of agitation to brush aside the findings of such a tribunal, I should have no doubt at all as to where I would stand in the matter. The tribunal is presided over by a right hon. Gentleman formerly well known to Members of this House as Mr. Ramsbotham, now Lord Soulbury. It has dealt with a very large number of disputes, has clear them up and resolved many troublesome tangles. In this case they made an award which, put briefly, was to this effect, that the Ministry of Information should give up at once as an interim measure a portion of the building which they were occupying in common user and that another building some distance off should be adapted as rapidly as possible for occupation by the School of Oriental Studies. In their finding the tribunal laid it down that such work as might be necessary to meet the School's reasonable requirements should be carried out as rapidly as possible. There is no question here, I am glad to say, of flouting the decision of the tribunal. What has happened is, that a difference of opinion has developed in regard to the interpretation of the tribunal's award in


regard to what may be regarded as reasonable requirements. According to the demands of the School, work of a purely temporary utility, costing no less than £20,000, would have had to be carried out at the expense of the State. In the view of the Ministry of Works, all that was reasonably required could be done for £11,000, and as between these two figures there was conflict, and that really is the whole story.
The Government, being very anxious indeed that the reasonable convenience both of the Ministry of Information and of the School of Oriental Studies should be met, have been for some weeks past casting about to see whether they could find some alternative solution, and, quite apart from any agitation—and I am sorry that there should have been any agitation in this matter—a plan was being devised and it came to its final stage last evening. It is the plan to which my hon. Friend referred. It has been put to the School and I hope very sincerely that it will be accepted. What it involves briefly is, that a portion of the building, which is at present unfinished, which consists of a steel frame and nothing more, should be completed at the expense of the Government in the first instance; that until that portion has been completed the School should remain in undisturbed occupation of the premises which it now occupies, and that until that unfinished building has been completed, the Ministry of Information should be subjected to the very considerable inconvenience of having staffs out-housed. It may take four, five or even more months before they can get in. Inconvenience will be suffered by the Ministry of my right hon. Friend, who, in a very public-spirited way, having heard the arguments, has said, that he is willing to subject himself and his staff to that degree of inconvenience. When that work is complete, the Ministry's staff will go into the new portion of the building. Ultimately, six months after the end of hostilities, the School for whom that building was being constructed when the war broke out, will enter into occupation of the finished building and will not have to wait indefinitely in order to get the building necessary to meet their full requirements.
I think hon. Members will agree that the offer which has been made to the governing body of the School is a very fair one

and one which they will be well advised to accept. It may be that when that offer is put to those concerned, some may be disposed to say that their requirements are not fully satisfied and that they would like more accommodation. But what is the position of the whole community under present conditions? Who can say that he is entirely satisfied with the conditions under which he is carrying on his work to-day? I am sure that no Cabinet Minister would say that; there are very few people, indeed, who are in the fortunate position of being entirely satisfied with the conditions under which they are working. I believe that every research institution in the country feels that it could do better work if it had more accommodation, and better facilities and if there were-no black-out. So, I hope that the authorities of the School, when they come to consider this offer, will not press the considerations of convenience too far but will recognise that the Government have made an offer which they could not have made but for the great public importance of the work that is being done and the act of self-denial by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Information. I hope, too, that the School will recognise the great assistance that has been rendered in this matter by the Ministry of Works and Planning, which has gone to considerable trouble in order to find a solution satisfactory to all concerned.

Mr. Silkin: I do not think that anybody will quarrel with the way in which the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council has presented the case. I think he stated it quite fairly and I am sure that the School of Oriental Languages will wish to associate themselves with the tribute paid to the Ministry of Works and Planning. But I cannot altogether agree with him when he quarrels with the agitation which has taken place over this matter. I think it is the duty of Members, when they feel that an injustice is being done, to raise their voices in this House and elsewhere in order to see that that injustice is remedied. That is all the agitation amounted to. Some of us, including myself, have taken a certain amount of trouble to acquaint ourselves with the facts of this case and we felt strongly that if the work which the Government put upon the School is to be done effectively, that work could not have been done under the decision arrived at


by the tribunal under the direction of the right hon. Gentleman.
For that reason we felt that the matter could not rest. However, I think everyone will accept the position as put by the right hon. Gentleman. I believe the School will recognise that in these difficult conditions and circumstances, the best possible has been done. I believe they will accept the decision in the letter and in the spirit and that they will endeavour to accommodate themselves to the needs of the present day. The difficulties the School has felt have not arisen through the black-out, or war conditions of that sort. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to know this: that increasing demands are being made on the School, quite legitimately, for the purposes of furthering the war effort. They are doing a vital piece of work. I have been over the School and have looked into some classes and I wish my right hon. Friend had had an opportunity of doing the same, because he would have found that in many of those classes it will be physically impossible to get one more student. I have looked for myself and have found that even as things are the students are overcrowded.
If it were not for the circumstances of the war, one could not justify the students carrying on in those conditions. No one was complaining, certainly not the students, about the conditions under which they are working, but the School is being asked to multiply by several times the number of students it will accept, and if the position be in many classes that they cannot get one more student into them, one wonders how it will be possible for them to carry on. I feel that that note of warning ought to be introduced. Nevertheless, I believe that the School will see what arrangements they can make and what re-arrangements may be possible. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that they will do it sincerely and with the best of good will, and I hope that the problems can be solved, because they are as anxious as anyone else to further the national effort. I would like to express the gratitude of all concerned to everyone who has taken part in the negotiations, particularly the Minister of Information, who has so graciously given way. I hope that nothing more on the subject will need to

be discussed in this House, but one never knows.

Mr. Hannah: I hope this Debate will have done real good in drawing attention to the admirable work of the London University in establishing this School and maintaining it in such efficiency. At the time I was living in the East, although we had the largest trade with China of any foreign country, it was a common complaint that we were more badly equipped in language than any other European nation. Now we have the extremely important work in the East of driving the flag of the Rising Sun from the seas and re-establishing our own prestige and that of China. There is no doubt whatever that this School will be more needed than ever before. Therefore, I hope that this Debate will draw the attention of the whole country to the extremely important work which the School is doing.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: I think the whole House must have heard with thankfulness that a solution appears to have been reached on the question on which the House of Commons showed that it felt strongly when it was first raised by my hon. Friend the Member for London University (Sir Graham-Little). I think it would be a pity if this Debate ended on any note of controversy, but I could not help regretting a little that the Lord President, in announcing what is after all a healing decision, should have spoken so severely about agitation. If there had been no agitation raised here or outside, the decision would have remained, which would have been against the interests of the country as well as against the interests of the school.

Sir J. Anderson: That is exactly the point of what I said. Negotiation was still proceeding; the matter had not been brought to finality and any public agitation was entirely premature, and I did wish to guard against the suggestion that the findings of a judicial tribunal can be properly overborne by agitation from one party.

Mr. Harvey: I do not want to make a controversy about the matter, but the right hon. Gentleman pointed out that there was a difference of view as to the meaning and application of the decision. That difference was of vital importance to the School of Oriental and African studies.


However, I think that we can earnestly hope that the solution which has been proposed will lead to satisfactory results. As regards the further accommodation which is needed in the interest of the Service Departments, they will no doubt be able to put their own case to the Government at the appropriate time.
It is not simply a question, as I think is realised, of the urgent needs of the present, but of the whole need of the future, when we shall require to have representatives of this country, consular and others, adequately equipped with a knowledge not only of Chinese and in due time Japanese, but also of the Amharic language in Ethiopia and other languages which need the most careful study under especially appropriate conditions. For all these this School renders a unique service. We are grateful to the Government, and many of us feel grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for London University for the part he has taken in the matter. We are grateful also to the Ministry of Information for having been willing to make a sacrifice of their own convenience in the general interest of the national good.

Miss Rathbone: I wish to put a question arising out of something which the Lord President of the Council said. I take it that, although this is an arrangement which has been accepted oh both sides, it does not mean that should there be in future

a necessity on State grounds for some means of expanding the School, the present arrangement will be held to debar those interested in the future of the School from putting forward their own representations if the public interest should demand it.

Sir J. Anderson: I have been dealing only with the immediate issue. If circumstances change and new needs develop, they will have to be considered, and ways will have to be found of meeting them. I sincerely hope the discussions will proceed in an amicable way.

Sir E. Graham-Little: I was not entirely clear whether it is accepted that the School is assured of its occupation of the part of the building which it at present occupies for the duration of the war.

Sir J. Anderson: So far as can at present be foreseen. If this proposal is accepted by the School—and I do not know at the moment whether the School will eventually accept it, although I hope they will and think they would be Well advised to do so—the intention is that the School should remain in undisturbed possession of the premises they at present occupy and that that position should continue until they take over the whole building six months after the termination of hostilities.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.